ArticleAcademic radiology2025
A Deep Learning Model for Comprehensive Automated Bone Lesion Detection and Classification on Staging Computed Tomography Scans.
Article in Academic radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesA common site of metastases for a variety of cancers is the bone, which is challenging and time consuming to review and important for cancer staging. Here, we developed a deep learning approach for detection and classification of bone lesions on staging CTs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study developed an nnUNet model using 402 patients' CTs, including prostate cancer patients with benign or malignant osteoblastic (blastic) bone lesions, and patients with benign or malignant osteolytic (lytic) bone lesions from various primary cancers. An expert radiologist contoured ground truth lesions, and the model was evaluated for detection on a lesion level. For classification performance, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and other metrics were calculated. The held-out test set consisted of 69 patients (32 with bone metastases). The AUC of AI-predicted burden of disease was calculated on a patient level.
resultsIn the independent test set, 70% of ground truth lesions were detected (67% of malignant lesions and 72% of benign lesions). The model achieved accuracy of 85% in classifying lesions as malignant or benign (91% sensitivity and 81% specificity). Although AI identified false positives in several benign patients, the patient-level AUC was 0.82 using predicted disease burden proportion.
conclusionOur lesion detection and classification AI model performs accurately and has the potential to correct physician errors. Further studies should investigate if the model can impact physician review in terms of detection rate, classification accuracy, and review time.
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.