ArticleMethodsX2025
EMI-LTI: An enhanced integrated model for lung tumor identification using Gabor filter and ROI.
Article in MethodsX, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this work, the CT scans images of lung cancer patients are analysed to diagnose the disease at its early stage. The images are pre-processed using a series of steps such as the Gabor filter, contours to label the region of interest (ROI), increasing the sharpening and cropping of the image. Data augmentation is employed on the pre-processed images using two proposed architectures, namely (1) Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and (2) Enhanced Integrated model for Lung Tumor Identification (EIM-LTI).•In this study, comparisons are made on non-pre-processed data, Haar and Gabor filters in CNN and the EIM-LTI models. The performance of the CNN and EIM-LTI models is evaluated through metrics such as precision, sensitivity, F1-score, specificity, training and validation accuracy.•The EIM-LTI model's training accuracy is 2.67 % higher than CNN, while its validation accuracy is 2.7 % higher. Additionally, the EIM-LTI model's validation loss is 0.0333 higher than CNN's.•In this study, a comparative analysis of model accuracies for lung cancer detection is performed. Cross-validation with 5 folds achieves an accuracy of 98.27 %, and the model was evaluated on unseen data and resulted in 92 % accuracy.
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.