ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Association of automated quantified emphysema and interstitial lung abnormality with survival in non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the prognostic value of artificial intelligence (AI) quantified emphysema and interstitial lung abnormality (ILA) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study used AI to quantify emphysema and ILA in patients diagnosed with NSCLC between January 2015 and December 2017. Associations between AI-quantified emphysema and ILA severity and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. The ability of AI-quantified emphysema and ILA severity to predict OS was explored via concordance index (C-index) and area under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Furthermore, exploratory OS analyses were performed on subgroups stratified by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease status, treatment type, and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging.
resultsOf 1675 patients, 830 (49.6%) survived, and 845 (50.4%) died. Whole emphysema (mild: HR, 1.66 [95% CI: 1.26, 2.18]; p < 0.001; more than mild: HR, 2.55 [95% CI: 1.88, 3.48]; p < 0.001) and ILA (equivocal ILA: HR, 1.63 [95% CI: 1.15, 2.32]; p = 0.006; definite ILA: HR, 2.33 [95% CI: 1.61, 3.35]; p < 0.001) severity were independent prognostic factors for NSCLC, while regional emphysema and regional ILA severity were not. The model combining AI-quantified whole emphysema severity and ILA severity outperformed the TNM staging-only model in predicting NSCLC patient outcome (C-index, 0.80 vs. 0.75; AUC, 0.90 vs. 0.85).
conclusionsIncreased AI-quantified whole emphysema and ILA severity were associated with worse OS in NSCLC. The model combining AI-quantified emphysema and ILA showed improved performance for predicting patient survival versus TNM staging alone. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: AI-quantified emphysema and ILA severity are associated with NSCLC patient outcome and can provide information complementary to TNM staging for predicting NSCLC patient survival and promoting the development of individualized management strategies. KEY POINTS: The study explores artificial intelligence (AI) quantified emphysema and interstitial lung abnormality (ILA) severity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) prognosis. The AI-quantified whole emphysema severity and ILA severity were independent prognostic factors for NSCLC patient outcome, while regional emphysema and regional ILA severity were not. AI-quantified emphysema and ILA severity may help predict the survival of NSCLC patients and help clinicians make informed treatment decisions.
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.