ArticleEJNMMI research2026
Multi-view deep learning for automated lymphoma staging from
Article in EJNMMI research, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymphoma staging plays a pivotal role in guiding risk-adapted therapeutic strategies. While the Ann Arbor system is the standard for staging lymphoma, current manual PET/CT evaluations suffer from interobserver variability and time inefficiencies. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) offer opportunities to objectively automate this workflow. This study aimed to develop a deep-learning model based on multi-view 2D maximum intensity projection (MIP) images from 18F-FDG PET/CT to automate lymphoma staging and compare its performance with nuclear medicine physicians.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT scans of 227 patients with lymphoma. The deep learning models were constructed with 2D MIP, three dimensional (3D) PET and 3D CT images for binary classication (limited vs. advanced stage). The models were evaluated by 5-fold cross-validation. Ground truth were the stage results of senior nuclear medicine physicians (5–10 years). Staging performance of different models was assessed by Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. McNemar’s chi-squared test was used to compare the staging differences between the best-performing model and the nuclear medicine physicians with early-career nuclear medicine physicians (1–3 and 3–5 years, respectively).
resultsThe developed AI model, LASM-mMIP, utilized multi-view 2D MIP images across coronal, sagittal, left anterior oblique (LAO), and right anterior oblique (RAO) perspectives. It achieved an accuracy of 93.0% and an AUC of 0.942 for staging, outperforming other AI models based on single-view MIP images and 3D volumetric PET/CT data. LASM-mMIP exhibited significantly higher staging accuracy compared to junior nuclear medicine physicians (1–3 years, 84.58%, P < 0.05) and similar accuracy to intermediate-experience physicians (3–5 years, 96.9%, P = 0.095). Moreover, the model reduced staging time by four orders of magnitude compared to physicians [(2.13 ± 0.31) seconds vs. (17918.90 ± 56310.53) seconds, P < 0.05]. Failure analysis revealed that most false negatives were due to occult lesions, while false positives arose from physiological hypermetabolism.
conclusionsThe LASM-mMIP model demonstrated high accuracy and significant temporal efficiency in lymphoma staging, offering performance comparable to early-career nuclear medicine physicians. By overcoming interobserver variability and reducing manual interpretation time, this AI-driven tool could streamline workflows and enhance decision-making in clinical settings. Future work should expand patient cohorts, explore additional clinical predictors, and refine stage-specific classification to further personalize lymphoma management.
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.