ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Evaluation of an artificial intelligence generated Brock score to determine malignancy risk of screen-detected pulmonary nodules.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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: Estimation of malignancy risk is a crucial step in the evaluation of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPN) on computed tomography (CT) scans. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools can improve the risk prediction of IPN. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of an AI generated Brock score with standard Brock score to estimate malignancy risk. Methods: The AI tool qCT (Qure.ai Technologies, Mumbai, India) was tested on a case-control series of patients with screen-detected nodules from the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST). Standard Brock score and AI Brock score were calculated for each nodule using clinical data from the NLST dataset and nodule characteristics derived from the dataset and AI interpretation of CT images, respectively. Performance of each model was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). The sensitivity and specificity of each model was calculated at fixed thresholds of ≥ 2, 5, and 10% cancer risk. Results: A total of 478 patients (239 cases, 239 controls) were included. The AUC of the AI Brock score and standard Brock score were 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.76) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.81), respectively (p = 0.053). At a 5% threshold, the sensitivity and specificity were 69% and 65% for AI and 57% and 82% for the standard. Conclusion: The accuracy of the AI tool was lower than the standard Brock score, though not reaching statistical significance. Across all risk thresholds, the AI tool had higher sensitivity, but lower specificity than the standard Brock score, suggesting use might complement clinician assessments of nodule risk.
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.