ArticleInsights into imaging2026
CT-based interpretable delta-radiomics model for risk stratification of pulmonary ground-glass nodules: a multicentre study.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and externally validate an interpretable fusion model combining multi-time-point CT radiomics with clinical-semantic features to predict invasiveness of pulmonary ground-glass nodules and support three-tier risk stratification. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this multicentre retrospective study, patients with pulmonary ground-glass nodules that were resected or managed via CT surveillance with stability (≥ 3 years) were included. Thin-section CT scans at baseline (T0) and follow-up (T1) were used to derive radiomic features at each time point and delta-radiomic features. Four unimodal models (T0 radiomics, T1 radiomics, delta-radiomics, and clinical-semantic) were trained using centre-grouped cross-validation and probability calibration, then fused via stacked logistic regression. Low- and high-risk groups defined by two training-derived and locked probability thresholds were evaluated in an external cohort against clinical and guideline-based models.
resultsThe training and external validation cohorts included 358 and 46 patients, respectively. The fusion model achieved an external area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.985 (95% CI: 0.955-1.000) with good calibration. Using training-derived and locked thresholds (0.50 and 0.65), 28.3% of patients were classified as low risk (NPV 100%; 95% CI: 75.3-100.0) and 69.6% as high risk (PPV 93.8%; 95% CI: 79.2-99.2; sensitivity 96.8%; 95% CI: 83.3-99.9). The model reduced false-positive high-risk classifications from 33.3 to 13.3 per 100 non-invasive lesions and showed higher net benefit than comparator models.
conclusionsAn interpretable fusion model enables robust three-tier risk stratification of pulmonary ground-glass nodules and may reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment in low-dose CT screening programmes. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A calibrated, interpretable fusion model for pulmonary ground-glass nodules enables accurate three-tier risk stratification, reducing false-positive high-risk classifications and supporting safer de-escalation of surveillance in low-risk patients. KEY POINTS: An interpretable fusion model combining multi-time-point CT radiomics with clinical-semantic features predicts invasiveness of pulmonary ground-glass nodules. The fusion model achieved excellent discrimination (external AUC 0.985) and good calibration, outperforming unimodal radiomics and guideline-based risk models. A three-tier risk stratification with calibrated thresholds reduces false-positive high-risk classifications and supports safe de-escalation of surveillance in low-risk patients.
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.