ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Diagnostic performance of deep learning models in differentiating benign and malignant pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer is the most lethal malignant tumor globally. Accurate differentiation between benign and malignant pulmonary nodules (PNs) is the core of early screening and diagnosis for lung cancer. Deep learning (DL) models can autonomously extract high-dimensional information from medical images, demonstrating technical advantages in this task. Our study systematically evaluates the accuracy and efficacy of DL models in differentiating benign from malignant PNs, providing systematic, high-quality integrated evidence for their diagnostic performance. Methods: Our study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) reporting checklist. We searched the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to 24 September 2025. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of DL models. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were employed to investigate sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias tests were conducted concurrently, and a Fagan plot was generated to assess clinical utility. Results: A total of 21 retrospective studies were ultimately included. The QUADAS-2 quality assessment indicated that the overall risk of bias in the included studies was manageable. The combined sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of DL models for distinguishing between benign and malignant PNs were 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-0.93], 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were heterogeneous (I Conclusions: DL models demonstrate both high sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing benign from malignant PNs, exhibiting outstanding overall diagnostic performance. With prospective validation and technical optimization in the future, their clinical utility is expected to improve further.
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.