ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026
Artificial intelligence-based density proportion analysis in predicting the invasiveness of neoplastic ground-glass nodules.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A positive correlation has been observed between computed tomography (CT) value and the invasiveness of neoplastic ground-glass nodules (GGNs). However, the traditional mean CT value cannot reflect the density heterogeneity of nodules. This study aimed to explore the value of artificial intelligence (AI)-based density proportion analysis in predicting the invasiveness of neoplastic GGNs. Methods: Between January 2019 and May 2023, a total of 996 (687 in the training cohort and 309 in the validation cohort) neoplastic GGNs [352 adenocarcinomas in situ (AISs), 334 minimally invasive adenocarcinomas (MIAs), and 310 invasive adenocarcinomas (IACs)] in 963 patients were retrospectively analyzed. AI software was used to obtain the density histograms of the nodules, and the proportions of the components in lesions with higher density at different density thresholds were subsequently recorded. The optimal density threshold and the corresponding proportion cutoff value for determining invasive lesions (ILs) (MIAs and IACs) and IACs were respectively explored and validated. Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between AI density parameters and radiological features of GGNs for predicting ILs and IACs was also conducted respectively. Results: For determining the ILs and IACs, the optimal density thresholds and the cutoff values for the proportion of components with density higher than the threshold were ≥-350 Hounsfield units (HU) and 17.22% [area under the curve (AUC): 0.801; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.769-0.830; sensitivity: 51.59%; specificity: 93.52%; P<0.001] and ≥-250 HU and 5.64% (AUC: 0.882; 95% CI: 0.855-0.905; sensitivity: 85.65%; specificity: 76.15%; P<0.001) in the training cohort, respectively. Compared with other radiological features, the predictive performance of density proportion (AUC: 0.801 for ILs, 0.882 for IACs) was comparable to that of nodule size (AUC: 0.820 for ILs, 0.869 for IACs) but significantly higher than that of the remaining features. In the validation cohort, the AUCs of these parameters for determining ILs and IACs were 0.814 and 0.885 (each P<0.001), respectively. In combination with these indicators, the AUCs of the morphological features in predicting ILs and IACs increased from 0.794 to 0.849 and from 0.843 to 0.902 (each P<0.001) in the training cohort, respectively. Conclusions: AI-based density analysis has a potential role in determining the invasiveness of neoplastic GGNs.
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.