ArticleRadiology advances2026
Deep learning-based pulmonary nodule risk assessment outperforms established malignancy risk scores in lung cancer screening.
Article in Radiology advances, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary nodules are commonly encountered in lung cancer screening. The risk of malignancy varies widely and is generally estimated using expert consensus guidelines (Lung CT Imaging Reporting and Data Systems [Lung-RADS]). Purpose: To assess the performance of a deep learning algorithm (Deep Pulmonary Nodule Profiler [DeepPNP]) for pulmonary nodule malignancy risk estimation in a lung cancer screening dataset and the effect of data enrichment in model training. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using 3 datasets. DeepPNP is a 3D convolutional network (EfficientNet-B0-based) operating on nodule-centered 3D patches. For the DeepPNP model training and validation, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) dataset was combined with 2 independent malignant nodule-only datasets, resulting in a merged dataset of 28 057 nodules, including 2362 malignant nodules. An ablation model (DeepPNP-NLST) was trained on NLST only. The testing was conducted on a held-out dataset from the NLST dataset. Performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, precision, F1 score, and accuracy, were analyzed across 3 operating thresholds selected based on specificities of 0.80, 0.85, and 0.90 (selected on the validation set). Benchmarks included Lung-RADS v2022 and the PanCan model. Results: On the NLST test set (including 2597 nodules from 1243 CT scans), DeepPNP achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-0.97), outperforming Lung-RADS AUC = 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94; Conclusion: DeepPNP outperformed established malignancy risk models in lung cancer screening. The inclusion of biopsy-confirmed malignant nodules from 2 external datasets provided a measurable performance gain, underscoring the importance of data enrichment during model training.
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.