ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025
Classifying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease status using computed tomography imaging and convolutional neural networks: comparison of model input image types and training data severity.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 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.
- Accuracy of Deep Learning in Diagnosing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of a multimodal clinical-radiomics-deep learning nomogram based on automated chest CT segmentation for classifying COPD severity: a multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Convolutional neural network (CNN)-based models using computed tomography images can classify chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with high performance, but various input image types have been investigated, and it is unclear what image types are optimal. We propose a 2D airway-optimized topological multiplanar reformat (tMPR) input image and compare its performance with established 2D/3D input image types for COPD classification. As a secondary aim, we examined the impact of training on a dataset with predominantly mild COPD cases and testing on a more severe dataset to assess whether it improves generalizability. Approach: CanCOLD study participants were used for training/internal testing; SPIROMICS participants were used for external testing. Several 2D/3D input image types were adapted from the literature. In the proposed models, 2D airway-optimized tMPR images (to convey shape and interior/contextual information) and 3D output fusion of axial/sagittal/coronal images were investigated. The area-under-the-receiver-operator-curve (AUC) was used to evaluate model performance and Brier scores were used to evaluate model calibration. To further examine how training dataset severity impacts generalization, we compared model performance when trained on the milder CanCOLD dataset versus the more severe SPIROMICS dataset, and vice versa. Results: A total of Conclusions: The CNN-based model with the combined 2D tMPR images and 3D lung view as input image types had the highest performance for COPD classification, highlighting the importance of airway information and that the fusion of different types of information as input image can improve CNN-based model performance. In addition, models trained on CanCOLD demonstrated strong generalization to the more severe SPIROMICS cohort, whereas training on SPIROMICS resulted in lower performance when tested on CanCOLD. These findings suggest that training on milder COPD cases may improve classification performance across the disease spectrum.
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.