ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Machine learning and discriminant analysis model for predicting benign and malignant pulmonary nodules.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study on the mortality risk and predictive model for COVID-19 inpatients with pneumonia manifestations.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Development and validation of machine learning models based on blood routine tests and tumor markers in early screening of primary bronchogenic lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary Nodules (PNs) are a trend considered as the early manifestation of lung cancer. Among them, PNs that remain stable for more than two years or whose pathological results suggest not being lung cancer are considered benign PNs (BPNs), while PNs that conform to the growth pattern of tumors or whose pathological results indicate lung cancer are considered malignant PNs (MPNs). Currently, more than 90% of PNs detected by screening tests are benign, with a false positive rate of up to 96.4%. While a range of predictive models have been developed for the identification of MPNs, there are still some challenges in distinguishing between BPNs and MPNs.
methodsWe included a total of 5197 patients for the case-control study according to the preset exclusion criteria and sample size. Among them, 4735 with BPNs and 2509 with MPNs were randomly divided into training, validation, and test sets according to a 7:1.5:1.5 ratio. Three widely applicable machine learning algorithms (Random Forests, Gradient Boosting Machine, and XGBoost) were used to screen the metrics, and then the corresponding predictive models were constructed using discriminative analysis, and the best performing model was selected as the target model. The model is internally validated with 10-fold cross validation and compared with PKUPH and Block models.
resultsWe collated information from chest CT examinations performed from 2018 to 2021 in the physical examination population and found that the detection rate of PNs was 21.57% and showed an overall upward trend. The GMU_D model constructed by discriminative analysis based on machine learning screening features had an excellent discriminative performance (AUC = 0.866, 95% CI: 0.858-0.874), and higher accuracy than the PKUPH model (AUC = 0.559, 95% CI: 0.552-0.567) and the Block model (AUC = 0.823, 95% CI: 0.814-0.833). Moreover, the cross-validation results also exhibit excellent performance (AUC = 0.866, 95% CI: 0.858-0.874).
conclusionThe detection rate of PNs was 21.57% in the physical examination population undergoing chest CT. Meanwhile, based on real-world studies of PNs, a greater prediction tool was developed and validated that can be used to accurately distinguish between BPNs and MPNs with the excellent predictive performance and differentiation.
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.