ArticleCurrent medical imaging2026
The Predictive Value of
Article in Current medical 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of radiomic features derived from 18F-FluoroDeoxyGlucose (FDG) PET/CT for Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in patients with lung adenocarcinoma.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 93 patients diagnosed with solitary lung adenocarcinoma who underwent 18F-FDG PET/ CT imaging and EGFR mutation results. The patients were divided into training (46 cases) and testing (47 cases) cohorts. Radiomic features were extracted from the primary tumor sites' PET and CT images. Feature selection was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. A radiomics score (Rad-score) was constructed, and combined models incorporating clinical factors and metabolic parameters were developed. Predictive performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, and decision curve analysis (DCA).
resultsThe radiomics model achieved AUCs of 0.865 (95% CI: 0.747-0.983) and 0.737 (95% CI: 0.572-0.901) in the training and testing sets, respectively, with corresponding accuracies of 80.9% and 78.3%. The clinical model alone demonstrated inferior performance, with AUCs of 0.637 and 0.645. The combined model showed slightly improved AUCs (0.885 and 0.714) but did not significantly outperform the radiomics-only model (P > 0.05). DCA indicated greater clinical utility for the radiomics model across a wide range of threshold probabilities. DISCUSSION: PET/CT-based radiomics research has also achieved good efficacy in predicting EGFR gene mutations. Compared with morphological imaging techniques, such as X-ray, ultrasound, and CT, 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging has the significant advantage of providing functional and metabolic information of lesions. Both radiomics and composite models could predict EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinoma patients, but the radiomics model showed slightly better clinical predictive efficacy than the composite model.
conclusionThe radiomics model and the combined model integrating Rad-score with clinical factors demonstrated comparable abilities in effectively predicting EGFR mutation status in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. These models could offer a non-invasive approach for identifying EGFR mutations.
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.