ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Development, deployment, and feature interpretability of a three-class prediction model for pulmonary diseases.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of an interpretable CT-based scoring model for gastric cancer aggressiveness.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- A radiomics-based machine learning model for the preoperative differentiation of lung adenocarcinoma subtypes.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Key Measures for Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy in Multi-Class Classification: An Overview and Simulation-Based Comparison.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Adaptive recognition network for few-shot plant diseases and pests based on homeostatic neuromodulation and meta-plasticity.Frontiers in plant science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop a high-performance machine learning model for predicting and interpreting features of pulmonary diseases. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed clinical and imaging data from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), granulomatous inflammation, and benign tumors, collected across multiple centers from January 2015 to October 2023. Data from two hospitals in Anhui Province were split into a development set (n = 1696) and a test set (n = 424) in an 8:2 ratio, with an external validation set (n = 909) from Zhejiang Province. Features with p < 0.05 from univariate analyses were selected using the Boruta algorithm for input into Random Forest (RF) and XGBoost models. Model efficacy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsA total of 3030 patients were included: 2269 with NSCLC, 529 with granulomatous inflammation, and 232 with benign tumors. The Obuchowski indices for RF and XGBoost in the test set were 0.7193 (95% CI: 0.6567-0.7812) and 0.8282 (95% CI: 0.7883-0.8650), respectively. In the external validation set, indices were 0.7932 (95% CI: 0.7572-0.8250) for RF and 0.8074 (95% CI: 0.7740-0.8387) for XGBoost. XGBoost achieved better accuracy in both the test (0.81) and external validation (0.79) sets. Calibration Curve and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA) showed XGBoost offered higher net clinical benefit.
conclusionThe XGBoost model outperforms RF in the three-class classification of lung diseases. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: XGBoost surpasses Random Forest in accurately classifying NSCLC, granulomatous inflammation, and benign tumors, offering superior clinical utility via multicenter data. KEY POINTS: Lung cancer classification model has broad clinical applicability. XGBoost outperforms random forests using CT imaging data. XGBoost model can be deployed on a website for clinicians.
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.