ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Automatic recognition and differentiation of pulmonary contusion and bacterial pneumonia based on deep learning and radiomics.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence construction: a review of the bridge between CT imaging features of lung ground-glass nodules adenocarcinoma and carcinogenic driver genes.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Automatic identification of different stage of Alzheimer's disease using multimodal MRI and artificial intelligence.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- A novel MRI-based habitat analysis and deep learning for predicting perineural invasion in prostate cancer: a two-center study.BMC cancer · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical work, there are difficulties in distinguishing pulmonary contusion(PC) from bacterial pneumonia(BP) on CT images by the naked eye alone when the history of trauma is unknown. Artificial intelligence is widely used in medical imaging, but its diagnostic performance for pulmonary contusion is unclear. In this study, artificial intelligence was used for the first time to identify lung contusion and bacterial pneumonia, and its diagnostic performance was compared with that of manual.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 2179 patients between April 2016 and July 2022 from two hospitals were collected and divided into a training set, an internal validation set, an external validation set. PC and BP were automatically recognized, segmented using VB-net and radiomics features were automatically extracted. Four machine learning algorithms including Decision Trees, Logistic Regression, Random Forests and Support Vector Machines(SVM) were using to built the models. De-long test was used to compare the performance among models. The best performing model and four radiologists diagnosed the external validation set, and compare the diagnostic efficacy of human and artificial intelligence.
resultsVB-net automatically detected and segmented PC and BP. Among the four machine learning models we've built, De-long test showed that SVM model had the best performance, with AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.998 (95% CI: 0.995-1), 0.980, 0.979, 0.982 in the training set, 0.891 (95% CI: 0.854-0.928), 0.979, 0.750, 0.860 in the internal validation set, 0.885 (95% CI: 0.850-0.920), 0.903, 0.976, 0.794 in the external validation set. The diagnostic ability of the SVM model was superior to that of human (P < 0.05).
conclusionOur VB-net automatically recognizes and segments PC and BP in chest CT images. SVM model based on radiomics features can quickly and accurately differentiate between them with higher accuracy than experienced radiologist.
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.