ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Non-enhanced CT deep learning model for differentiating lung adenocarcinoma from tuberculoma: a multicenter diagnostic study.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled 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
- Tuberculosis Preceding Lung Cancer: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis Revealing a Critical Gap in Post-2020 Evidence.Cancers · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a deep learning model based on three-dimensional features (DL_3D) for distinguishing lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) from tuberculoma (TBM). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 1160 patients were collected from three hospitals. A vision transformer network-based DL_3D model was trained, and its performance in differentiating LUAD from TBM was evaluated using validation and external test sets. The performance of the DL_3D model was compared with that of two-dimensional features (DL_2D), radiomics, and six radiologists. Diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) analysis.
resultsThe study included 840 patients in the training set (mean age, 54.8 years [range, 19-86 years]; 514 men), 210 patients in the validation set (mean age, 54.3 years [range, 18-86 years]; 128 men), and 110 patients in the external test set (mean age, 54.7 years [range, 22-88 years]; 51 men). In both the validation and external test sets, DL_3D exhibited excellent diagnostic performance (AUCs, 0.895 and 0.913, respectively). In the test set, the DL_3D model showed better performance (AUC, 0.913; 95% CI: 0.854, 0.973) than the DL_2D (AUC, 0.804, 95% CI: 0.722, 0.886; p < 0.001), radiomics (AUC, 0.676, 95% CI: 0.574, 0.777; p < 0.001), and six radiologists (AUCs, 0.692 to 0.810; p value range < 0.001-0.035).
conclusionThe DL_3D model outperforms expert radiologists in distinguishing LUAD from TBM. KEY POINTS: Question Can a deep learning model perform in differentiating LUAD from TBM on non-enhanced CT images? Findings The DL_3D model demonstrated higher diagnostic performance than the DL_2D model, radiomics model, and six radiologists in differentiating LUAD and TBM. Clinical relevance The DL_3D model could accurately differentiate between LUAD and TBM, which can help clinicians make personalized treatment plans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40500528What 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.