ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Radiomics of lung ventilation/perfusion tomographic imaging in pulmonary embolism diagnosis.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to develop a machine learning model (named V/P-mics) to identify pulmonary embolism based on lung ventilation/perfusion single-photon emission tomography (V/P-SPECT) images.
methodsWe retrospectively collected the data of 260 patients from one hospital who underwent V/P-SPECT. Patients were randomly assigned to training and testing groups in a 7:3 ratio. We created an internal further validation group using data of an additional 35 patients from the same hospital, and an external further validation group using data of 30 patients from another hospital. We constructed 35 models and selected one for further optimization. The generalizability of V/P-mics was proven by comparing the area under the curve (AUC) of the testing group, internal and external further validation groups. The diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of V/P-mics was compared with that of nuclear physicians.
resultsV/P-mics showed excellent generalizability, with no statistical difference in AUC among the testing, internal further validation, and external further validation groups (0.938 vs. 0.923 vs. 0.990, all P values > 0.05). The AUC of V/P-mics was close to that of the senior physician (0.923 vs. 0.975, P = 0.332), but significantly higher than the junior physician (0.923 vs. 0.725, P = 0.050). Furthermore, V/P-mics significantly shortened the diagnosis time as compared to the junior physician (100 ± 16 s vs. 240 ± 37 s, P = 0.001).
conclusionThe V/P-mics had good discrimination and generalizability and significantly shortened the diagnosis time for patients with pulmonary embolism. Of note, the model showed excellent interpretability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40045110What 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.