ArticleRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2025
Human and Deep Learning Predictions of Peripheral Lung Cancer Using a 1.3 mm Video Endoscopic Probe.
Article in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Endobronchial Ultrasound for Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Staging: A Scoping Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Comparing artificial intelligence and healthcare professional performance in surgical and interventional video analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Bronchial Physiological Saline Injection to Visualize Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions in Ultrathin Bronchoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Direct Intranodal Visualization During EBUS-TBNA Using the Iriscope: A Novel Case Series.Respirology case reports · 2025Article
- Human and Deep Learning Predictions of Peripheral Lung Cancer Using a 1.3 mm Video Endoscopic Probe.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIriscope, a 1.3 mm video endoscopic probe introduced through an r-EBUS catheter, allows for the direct visualisation of small peripheral pulmonary nodules (PPNs). This study assessed the ability of physicians with different levels of experience in bronchoscopy, and the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the malignant nature of small PPNs during Iriscope peripheral endoscopy.
methodsPatients undergoing bronchoscopy with r-EBUS and Iriscope for peripheral PPNs < 20 mm with a definite diagnosis were analysed. Senior and Junior physicians independently interpreted video-recorded Iriscope sequences, classifying them as tumoral (malignant) or non-tumoral, blind to the final diagnosis. A deep learning (DL) model was also trained on Iriscope images and tested on a different set of patients for comparison with human interpretation. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score were calculated.
resultsSixty-one patients with small PPNs (median size 15 mm, IQR: 11-20 mm) were included. The technique allowed for the direct visualisation of the lesions in all cases. The final diagnosis was cancer for 37 cases and a benign lesion in 24 cases. Senior physicians outperformed junior physicians in recognising tumoral Iriscope images, with a balanced accuracy of 85.4% versus 66.7%, respectively, when compared with the final diagnosis. The DL model outperformed junior physicians with a balanced accuracy of 71.5% but was not superior to senior physicians.
conclusionIriscope could be a valuable tool in PPNs management, especially for experienced operators. Applied to Iriscope images, DL could enhance overall performance of less experienced physicians in diagnosing malignancy.
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.