ArticleScientific reports2025
A benchmark of deep learning approaches to predict lung cancer risk using national lung screening trial cohort.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parameter-Efficient LoRA-GRL Adaptation for Cross-Center Classification of Benign and Malignant Lung Nodules on Heterogeneous Standard-Dose Chest CT: A Multi-Institutional Study from Palestine.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Lung cancer detection in CT scans using extracted nodule features and precise multistage segmentation with deep learning based ensemble model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Recent advances in artificial intelligence across interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Research on Risk Transfer Pathways for Lung Cancer Among Middle-Aged and Older Individuals Using Deep Reinforcement Learning: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) methods have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in assisting with lung cancer risk prediction tasks using computed tomography (CT) scans. However, the lack of comprehensive comparison and validation of state-of-the-art (SOTA) models in practical settings limits their clinical application. This study aims to review and analyze current SOTA deep learning models for lung cancer risk prediction (malignant-benign classification). To evaluate our model's general performance, we selected 253 out of 467 patients from a subset of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) who had CT scans without contrast, which are the most commonly used, and divided them into training and test cohorts. The CT scans were preprocessed into 2D-image and 3D-volume formats according to their nodule annotations. We evaluated ten 3D and eleven 2D SOTA deep learning models, which were pretrained on large-scale general-purpose datasets (Kinetics and ImageNet) and radiological datasets (3DSeg-8, nnUnet and RadImageNet), for their lung cancer risk prediction performance. Our results showed that 3D-based deep learning models generally perform better than 2D models. On the test cohort, the best-performing 3D model achieved an AUROC of 0.86, while the best 2D model reached 0.79. The lowest AUROCs for the 3D and 2D models were 0.70 and 0.62, respectively. Furthermore, pretraining on large-scale radiological image datasets did not show the expected performance advantage over pretraining on general-purpose datasets. Both 2D and 3D deep learning models can handle lung cancer risk prediction tasks effectively, although 3D models generally have superior performance than their 2D competitors. Our findings highlight the importance of carefully selecting pretrained datasets and model architectures for lung cancer risk prediction. Overall, these results have important implications for the development and clinical integration of DL-based tools in lung cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.