Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39721356›Full record

ArticleArtificial intelligence in medicine2025

Concordance-based Predictive Uncertainty (CPU)-Index: Proof-of-concept with application towards improved specificity of lung cancers on low dose screening CT.

Yuqi Wang, Aarzu Gupta, Fakrul Islam Tushar, Breylon Riley, Avivah Wang, Tina D Tailor, Stacy Tantum, Jian-Guo Liu, Mustafa R Bashir, Joseph Y Lo and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Artificial intelligence in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Risk prediction for lung cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-regression.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Yuqi WangDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America. Electronic address: yuqi.wang@duke.edu.
Aarzu GuptaDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Fakrul Islam TusharDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Breylon RileyMedical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Avivah WangSchool of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Tina D TailorDepartment of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Stacy TantumDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Jian-Guo LiuDepartments of Physics and Mathematics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Mustafa R BashirDepartment of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Joseph Y LoDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Kyle J LafataDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America; Department of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America. Electronic address: kyle.lafata@duke.edu.

Funding

TR&D Project 3: Virtual ReadersP41EB028744 · NIBIB · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Ehsan Samei · 2021 to 2026
$7.8M
Computer-Aided Triage of Body CT Scans with Deep LearningR01CA261457 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LO, JOSEPH Y, RUBIN, GEOFFREY D · 2023 to 2025
$2.3M
Computational tumor phenotyping to interrogate treatment resistance and immune dysregulation in head and neck cancerR01CA289261 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Kyle Lafata · 2024 to 2026
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA261457NCI NIH HHS R01 CA289261NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB028744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a novel concordance-based predictive uncertainty (CPU)-Index, which integrates insights from subgroup analysis and personalized AI time-to-event models. Through its application in refining lung cancer screening (LCS) predictions generated by an individualized AI time-to-event model trained with fused data of low dose CT (LDCT) radiomics with patient demographics, we demonstrate its effectiveness, resulting in improved risk assessment compared to the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Subgroup-based Lung-RADS faces challenges in representing individual variations and relies on a limited set of predefined characteristics, resulting in variable predictions. Conversely, personalized AI time-to-event models are hindered by transparency issues and biases from censored data. By measuring the prediction consistency between subgroup analysis and AI time-to-event models, the CPU-Index framework offers a nuanced evaluation of the bias-variance trade-off and improves the transparency and reliability of predictions. Consistency was estimated by the concordance index of subgroup analysis-based similarity rank and model prediction similarity rank. Subgroup analysis-based similarity loss was defined as the sum-of-the-difference between Lung-RADS and feature-level 0-1 loss. Model prediction similarity loss was defined as squared loss. To test our approach, we identified 3,326 patients who underwent LDCT for LCS from 1/1/2015 to 6/30/2020 with confirmation of lung cancer on pathology within one year. For each LDCT image, the lesion associated with a Lung-RADS score was detected using a pretrained deep learning model from Medical Open Network for AI (MONAI), from which radiomic features were extracted. Radiomics were optimally fused with patient demographics via a positional encoding scheme and used to train a neural multi-task logistic regression time-to-event model that predicts malignancy. Performance was maximized when radiomics features were fused with positionally encoded demographic features. In this configuration, our algorithm raised the AUC from 0.81 ± 0.04 to 0.89 ± 0.02. Compared to standard Lung-RADS, our approach reduced the False-Positive-Rate from 0.41 ± 0.02 to 0.30 ± 0.12 while maintaining the same False-Negative-Rate. Our methodology enhances lung cancer risk assessment by estimating prediction uncertainty and adjusting accordingly. Furthermore, the optimal integration of radiomics and patient demographics improved overall diagnostic performance, indicating their complementary nature.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProof of Concept StudyRadiation DosageReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentUncertaintyLung cancer screeningPersonalized AIPersonalized uncertainty quantificationSubgroup analysisTime-to-event

Identifiers

PMID39721356
PMCPMC12139530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.