ArticleCurrent medical imaging2025
Classifiers Combined with DenseNet Models for Lung Cancer Computed Tomography Image Classification: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Current medical imaging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. While deep learning approaches show promise in medical imaging, comprehensive comparisons of classifier combinations with DenseNet architectures for lung cancer classification are limited. The study investigates the performance of different classifier combinations, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), with DenseNet architectures for lung cancer classification using chest CT scan images.
methodsA comparative analysis was conducted on 1,000 chest CT scan images comprising Adenocarcinoma, Large Cell Carcinoma, Squamous Cell Carcinoma, and normal tissue samples. Three DenseNet variants (DenseNet-121, DenseNet-169, DenseNet-201) were combined with three classifiers: SVM, ANN, and MLP. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, Area Under the Curve (AUC), precision, recall, specificity, and F1- score with an 80-20 train-test split.
resultsThe optimal model achieved 92% training accuracy and 83% test accuracy. Performance across models ranged from 81% to 92% for training accuracy and 73% to 83% for test accuracy. The most balanced combination demonstrated robust results (training: 85% accuracy, 0.99 AUC; test: 79% accuracy, 0.95 AUC) with minimal overfitting. DISCUSSION: Deep learning approaches effectively categorize chest CT scans for lung cancer detection. The MLP-DenseNet-169 combination's 83% test accuracy represents a promising benchmark. Limitations include retrospective design and a limited sample size from a single source.
conclusionThis evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of combining DenseNet architectures with different classifiers for lung cancer CT classification. The MLP-DenseNet-169 achieved optimal performance, while SVM-DenseNet-169 showed superior stability, providing valuable benchmarks for automated lung cancer detection systems.
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.