ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2025
Deep-learning-based 3D content-based image retrieval system on chest HRCT: Performance assessment for interstitial lung diseases and usual interstitial pneumonia.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diffuse parenchymal lung diseases have various conditions and CT imaging findings. Differentiating interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and determining the presence or absence of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), can be challenging, even for experienced radiologists. To address this challenge, we developed a 3D-content-based image retrieval system (CBIR) and investigated its clinical usefulness. Methods: Using deep learning technology, we developed a prototype system that analyzes thin-slice whole lung HRCT images, automatically registers them in a database, and retrieves similar images. To evaluate search performance, we used a database of 2058 cases and assessed image similarity between query and retrieved cases using a 5-point visual score (5: Similar, 4: Somewhat similar, 3: Neither, 2: Somewhat dissimilar, 1: Dissimilar). To assess clinical usefulness, we evaluated the concordance of labels (ILD/non-ILD, with/without UIP) between query and retrieved cases, using a database of 301 cases across 57 diseases. Results: For search performance, the mean score of visual similarity between 70 queries and their top 5 retrieved cases was 4.37 ± 0.83. For clinical usefulness, label concordance between 25 queries and their top 5 retrieved cases was assessed across 4 labels. For ILD, the mean concordance of labels was 0.94 ± 0.15, while for non-ILD, it was 0.64 ± 0.31. For cases with UIP, the mean concordance of labels was 0.86 ± 0.17, while for cases without UIP, it was 0.83 ± 0.24. Conclusions: Our CBIR system showed high accuracy for identifying cases with/without UIP, suggesting its potential to support UIP differentiation in clinical practice.
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.