ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Radiomics-based high-resolution CT analysis for differentiating primary tumor sources of pulmonary metastases.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate machine learning models based on HRCT radiomic features for distinguishing breast and colorectal cancer pulmonary metastases, and interpret the optimal model to aid clinical decision-making. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 85 patients with pathologically confirmed pulmonary metastases. After radiomic feature extraction, the cohort was divided into a training set (n=59) and an independent test set (n=26) at a 7:3 ratio via stratified sampling. Data were processed with Z-score normalization, variance thresholding and PCA (45 principal components). Five classifiers were constructed: LR, linear SVM, RF, XGBoost and LightGBM. Model stability and performance were assessed by 5-fold stratified cross-validation and independent test validation. Results: The 45 principal components accounted for 99.92% of cumulative variance. LR showed optimal performance, with a test AUC of 0.9821, classification accuracy of 84.62%, and a mean cross-validation AUC of 0.9606 (95% CI: 0.8887-0.9895). The small training-test AUC difference (0.0179) indicated no severe overfitting. SVM ranked second (test AUC = 0.9405), while XGBoost and RF exhibited significant overfitting and LightGBM underfitting. The model's decision relied on key texture features; only GLSZM non-uniformity differed significantly between groups, consistent with their pathophysiological characteristics. Conclusion: The PCA-reduced and regularization-optimized LR model has excellent generalization, stability and clinical interpretability in differentiating pulmonary metastases from breast and colorectal cancers. This study preliminarily highlights the potential of LR in high-dimensional small-sample scenarios, and provides a foundational methodological reference for future large-scale multicenter diagnostic research.
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.