ArticleScientific reports2026
Radiomics-derived classifier performance evaluation in lung nodule characterization compared with expert radiologists.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Fusion of Radiomics and Gated Graph Attention Network for Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy Classification.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
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
Accurate differentiation of benign and malignant lung nodules on CT is essential for patient management. This study compares machine learning–based radiomics models with expert radiologists for this task. Histopathologically confirmed CT cases were retrospectively collected, and nodules were segmented for radiomic feature extraction using PyRadiomics. Feature selection combined LASSO, Random Forest importance, mRMR, and eBoruta, yielding 33 features. Multiple models (Random Forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, CatBoost, SVM, LDA, QDA, MLP) were evaluated using 5-fold stratified cross-validation, with hyperparameter tuning via Optuna. The tuned SVM performed best, achieving an accuracy of 0.886, precision of 0.875, recall of 0.955, F1-score of 0.913, and AUC of 0.941 on the test set. McNemar’s test showed no significant difference between SVM and radiologists (p = 1.000). SHAP analysis provided interpretability of model decisions. Radiomics-based models, particularly SVM, demonstrated performance comparable to radiologists, suggesting potential as supportive tools in lung nodule evaluation, especially in resource-limited settings. However, findings are limited by the small, single-center dataset, and require validation in larger, multicenter cohorts.
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.