ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Meta-Analysis of Deep-Learning-Based Fusion of Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography in Oncologic Imaging.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
- Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung: integrating molecular landscape, imaging phenotypes, and translational therapeutic strategies.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo develop and validate deep learning (DL) and traditional clinical-metabolic (CM) models based on 18 F-FDG PET/CT images for noninvasively predicting high-grade patterns (HGPs) of invasive lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD).
methodsA total of 303 patients with invasive LUAD were enrolled in this retrospective study; these patients were randomly divided into training, validation and test sets at a ratio of 7:1:2. DL models were trained and optimized on PET, CT and PET/CT fusion images, respectively. CM model was built from clinical and PET/CT metabolic parameters via backwards stepwise logistic regression and visualized via a nomogram. The prediction performance of the models was evaluated mainly by the area under the curve (AUC). We also compared the AUCs of different models for the test set.
resultsCM model was established upon clinical stage (OR: 7.30; 95% CI: 2.46-26.37), cytokeratin 19 fragment 21 - 1 (CYFRA 21-1, OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.96-1.57), mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean, OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.17-1.49), total lesion glycolysis (TLG, OR: 0.994; 95% CI: 0.990-1.000) and size (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.95-2.02). Both the DL and CM models exhibited good prediction efficacy in the three cohorts, with AUCs ranging from 0.817 to 0.977. For the test set, the highest AUC was yielded by the CT-DL model (0.895), followed by the PET/CT-DL model (0.882), CM model (0.879) and PET-DL model (0.817), but no significant difference was revealed between any two models.
conclusionsDeep learning and clinical-metabolic models based on the CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.