ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Enhancing
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: A total of 6,703 ultrasound images from 1,257 lesions in 1,202 patients with thyroid cancer were retrospectively collected. Since multiple ultrasound images were available for each lesion, the lesion-level prediction was derived as the average of the image-level outputs. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were adopted to construct the clinical model. Six machine learning models were compared to identify the optimal one. A ResNet50-32x4d model was fine-tuned to build the DL model. The extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm was employed to integrate the optimal radiomics score (radscore), DL scores, and clinical factors for combined model construction. The Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) algorithm and gradient-weighted class activation mapping technique were applied for interpretability. Results: Multivariate analysis identified the significant predictive variables to be sex [odds ratio (OR) =0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54-0.69; P<0.001], age (OR =1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.01; P<0.001), tumor size (OR =0.54; 95% CI: 0.50-0.58; P<0.001), and multifocality (OR =0.66; 95% CI: 0.57-0.75; P<0.001). Among the six machine learning models, the XGBoost model demonstrated the best performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.809 and 0.745 in the training and test sets at the lesion level, respectively. The DL model outperformed the XGBoost model, achieving an AUC of 0.807 in the test set at the lesion level. The combined model exhibited comparable performance to that of the DL model, with AUCs of 0.845 and 0.814 in training and test sets at the lesion level, respectively. SHAP analysis revealed that DL scores and radscores were key contributors in predicting mutation status. Conclusions: The combined model integrating clinical and ultrasound data can effectively predict
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.