ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Predicting pathological subtypes of pure ground-glass nodules using Swin Transformer deep learning model.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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.
- Predicting pulmonary nodule growth from a single time point: a fusion model of radiomics and deep learning to optimize follow-up strategies.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Utilization of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Automated Segmentation of Median Nerve from Ultrasound Obtained from the Distal Forearm and Wrist.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the diagnostic value of a multi-classification model based on deep learning in distinguishing the pathological subtypes of lung adenocarcinoma or glandular prodromal lesions with pure ground-glass nodules (pGGN) on CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 590 cases of pGGN confirmed by pathology as lung adenocarcinoma or glandular prodromal lesions were collected retrospectively, of which 462 cases of pGGN were used as training and testing set, and 128 cases of pGGN as external verification set. The research is based on the Swin Transformer network and uses a five-fold cross-validation method to train the model. The diagnostic efficacy of deep learning model and radiologist on the external verification set was compared. The classification efficiency of the model is evaluated by confusion matrix, accuracy, precision and F1-score.
resultsThe accuracy of the training and testing sets of the deep learning model is 95.21% and 91.41% respectively, and the integration accuracy is 94.65%. The accuracy, precision and recall rate of the optimal model are 87.01%, 87.57% and 87.01% respectively, and the F1-score is 87.09%. In the external verification set, the accuracy of the model is 91.41%, and the F1-score is 91.42%. The classification efficiency of the deep learning model is better than that of radiologists.
conclusionThe multi-classification model based on deep learning has a good ability to predict the pathological subtypes of lung adenocarcinoma or glandular prodromal lesions with pGGN, and its classification efficiency is better than that of radiologists, which can improve the diagnostic accuracy of pulmonary pGGN. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Swin Transformer deep learning models can noninvasively predict the pathological subtypes of pGGN, which can be used as a preoperative auxiliary diagnostic tool to improve the diagnostic accuracy of pGGN, thereby optimizing the prognosis of patients. KEY POINTS: The Swin Transformer model can predict the pathological subtype of pure ground-glass nodules. Compared with the performance of radiologists, the deep learning model performs better. Swin Transformer model can be used as a tool for preoperative diagnosis.
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.