ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence models for pulmonary nodule classification: a multi-model evaluation.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Development and internal validation of a clinical nomogram incorporating quantitative CT features for predicting malignancy in pulmonary nodules ≤ 3 cm.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Comparison of three commercial AI tools for detection and malignancy assessment of incidental lung nodules.Frontiers in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. While early detection improves survival, distinguishing malignant from benign pulmonary nodules remains challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to enhance diagnostic accuracy, but its clinical reliability is still under investigation. Here, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AI models in classifying pulmonary nodules. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective study analyzed pulmonary nodules (4-30 mm) detected on CT scans, using three AI software models. Sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and false-negative rates were calculated. The diagnostic accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), with histopathology serving as the gold standard. Subgroup analyses were based on nodule size and histopathological classification. The impact of imaging parameters was evaluated using regression analysis.
resultsA total of 158 nodules (n = 30 benign, n = 128 malignant) were analyzed. One AI model classified most nodules as intermediate risk, preventing further accuracy assessment. The other models demonstrated moderate sensitivity (53.1-70.3%) but low specificity (46.7-66.7%), leading to a high false-positive rate (45.5-52.4%). AUC values were between 0.5 and 0.6 (95% CI). Subgroup analyses revealed decreased sensitivity (47.8-61.5%) but increased specificity (100%), highlighting inconsistencies. In total, up to 49.0% of the pulmonary nodules were classified as intermediate risk. CT scan type influenced performance (p = 0.03), with better classification accuracy on breath-held CT scans.
conclusionAI-based software models are not ready for standalone clinical use in pulmonary nodule classification due to low specificity, a high false-negative rate and a high proportion of intermediate-risk classifications. KEY POINTS: Question How accurate are commercially available AI models for the classification of pulmonary nodules compared to the gold standard of histopathology? Findings The evaluated AI models demonstrated moderate sensitivity, low specificity and high false-negative rates. Up to 49% of pulmonary nodules were classified as intermediate risk. Clinical relevance The high false-negative rates could influence radiologists' decision-making, leading to an increased number of interventions or unnecessary surgical procedures.
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.