Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40295979›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2025

Yue Guo, Xibin Jia, Chuanxu Yang, Chao Fan, Hui Zhu, Xu Chen, Fugeng Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yue Guo *Department of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China.
Xibin Jia *Faculty of Information Technology, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China.
Chuanxu YangFaculty of Information Technology, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China.
Chao FanFaculty of Information Technology, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China.
Hui ZhuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China.
Xu ChenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China.
Fugeng LiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China. liufugengbjhmoh@163.com.

Funding

National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding BJ-2021-186, BJ-2024-190
6 · The paper itself

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

Adenocarcinoma of LungDeep LearningLung NeoplasmsNomogramsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAgedFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingRadiopharmaceuticalsRetrospective StudiesFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsDeep learningFluorodeoxyglucose F18Histological subtypesLung adenocarcinomaPositron emission tomography-computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID40295979
PMCPMC12036234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.