ArticleBMC cancer2026
A CT-based deep learning approach to differentiate multiple primary lung cancers, metastases, and benign nodules.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Utilizing clinical features, genetic mutations, and a 14-gene molecular assay for optimizing the management of multiple primary lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer, particularly adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. The diagnosis of multiple primary lung cancers (MPLCs) has become more frequent due to advanced chest CT technology and improved health surveillance. However, differentiating MPLCs from intrapulmonary metastases (IPMs) and multiple benign pulmonary lesions (MBPLs) remains challenging.
objectivesDistinguishing multiple primary lung cancers from metastases and benign lesions on CT remains challenging yet critical for treatment planning. Current approaches rely on subjective interpretation and invasive procedures. This study aims to develop and validate an automated deep learning classification system to provide rapid, objective diagnoses for optimizing patient management. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe studied 260 patients (MPLC = 83, IPM = 81, MBPL = 96; 881 axial CT slices). Six pretrained architectures (DenseNet-121, EfficientNet-B1, MambaOut-Kobe, ResNet-50, SwinV2-CR-Tiny-224, ViT-Tiny-Patch16-224) were compared in a five-seed ablation (seeds 42, 789, 1011, 2025, 2048). Pairwise one-vs-rest DeLong tests were aggregated across seeds to compare AUCs. Clinical utility was assessed using decision curve analysis (DCA). The final model (MambaOut-Kobe) underwent stratified five-fold cross-validation.
resultsConsidering efficiency, MambaOut-Kobe combined competitive accuracy with the lowest memory (~ 100 ± 14 MB) and low latency (~ 0.0093 ± 0.0017 s/image). Aggregated DeLong testing found no significant AUC differences among these models after multiplicity control. On five-fold cross-validation, MambaOut-Kobe achieved a macro-AUC of 0.946 ± 0.004 (95% CI 0.942-0.950), and an accuracy 0.829 ± 0.029 (95% CI 0.800-0.858). DCA demonstrated a positive net benefit across clinically relevant threshold probabilities compared with treat-all and treat-none strategies. Grad-CAM visualizations highlighted diagnostically relevant regions in CT images, providing interpretable decision-making support.
conclusionsThe MambaOut Kobe model demonstrates outstanding potential for clinical application in classifying MPLC, IPM, and MBPL. Its combination of high accuracy and computational efficiency makes it a promising tool for lung cancer diagnosis and treatment planning. This automated approach could reduce diagnostic uncertainty, minimize unnecessary invasive procedures, and facilitate timely, personalized treatment decisions for patients with multiple lung lesions. Future studies should focus on validating the model on larger, multicenter datasets and enhancing its discriminatory capacity between MPLC and IPM.
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.