ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning for the invasiveness assessment of ground-glass nodules with fine segmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of radiomics, deep learning, and hybrid AI for invasiveness stratification of pulmonary ground-glass nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning models in differentiating benign and malignant pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate recognition of invasive lung adenocarcinoma (IAC) presenting as ground-glass nodules (GGNs) is crucial for guiding clinical decision-making and timely surgical intervention. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of deep learning (DL) models via fine nodule segmentation in assessing the invasiveness of lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: Literature from the inception of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was searched. Studies related to DL and nodule segmentation in diagnosing IAC were evaluated and included. Titles and abstracts were screened, and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used to assess the quality of the selected studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria of diagnostic tests were used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Eight studies involving 5,281 nodules and 4,676 patients were included and analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that the combined sensitivity of DL for the diagnosis of IAC was 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.87], while the specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93), but the overall quality of the evidence was suboptimal. Conclusions: DL and nodule segmentation demonstrated high accuracy in assessing lung adenocarcinoma invasiveness, but the certainty of the associated evidence was low. More large-scale, multicenter, high-quality diagnostic accuracy studies are needed to validate the performance and usefulness of DL in the assessment of lung adenocarcinoma invasiveness.
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.