ArticleEJNMMI research2025
Predicting 2-year time to progression in diffuse large B cell lymphoma using 3D CNNs on whole-body PET/CT scans.
Article in EJNMMI research, 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to develop 3D convolutional neural networks (CNN) for the prediction of 2 years' time to progression using PET/CT baseline scans from diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. The predictive performance of the 3D CNNs was compared to that of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and a previously developed 2D CNN model using maximum intensity projections (MIP-CNN).
results1132 DLBCL patients were included from 7 independent clinical trials. Two 3D CNN models were developed using a training dataset of 636 patient scans merged from two trials, one CNN model trained on lesion-only PET (L-PET3D-CNN) and the second model trained on both lesion-only and whole body PET scans (LW-PET3D-CNN). The 3D models were cross-validated and performance was independently tested on 496 patient scans merged from five external trials, using the area under the curve (AUC). Performance was compared to the IPI and MIP-CNN using DeLong test. Occlusion maps were implemented to gain insights about the models' decision-making process. The IPI and the MIP-CNN yielded an AUC of 0.53 and 0.65 respectively on external test data. The L-PET3D-CNN and the LW-PET3D-CNN yielded a significantly higher AUC, 0.65 and 0.64 respectively, compared to the IPI. For each individual external clinical trial, the models were consistently better than IPI. The MIP-CNN and the 3D CNNs showed equivalent performance on external test data.
conclusionThe 3D CNN models remained predictive of outcome on all external test datasets, outperforming the IPI. Although these models perform similarly to the MIP-CNN, the main advantage of the 3D CNN is the use of 3D occlusion maps to better understand the decision-making process of the models.
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.