ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence-based imaging and liquid biopsy combined with clinical evaluation for distinguishing benign and malignant pulmonary nodules: a diagnostic network meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The incidence of pulmonary nodules is rising. In the United States alone, approximately 1.57 million cases are detected annually via low-dose CT screening. This growing number has created an urgent need for accurately differentiating malignant lesions. The current standard methods rely on radiologist interpretation. However, these methods show variable accuracy, with a sensitivity range of 62%-79%. Invasive biopsies, which are often used for further diagnosis, carry complication risks ranging from 15% to 28%. Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) imaging analysis and liquid biopsy platforms, show promising capabilities in pulmonary nodule characterization. Nevertheless, there is a lack of a rigorous methodology for their comparative evaluation. Methods: We systematically evaluated 20 comparative studies that were published between 2015 and 2024. These studies assessed AI-based imaging methods, which included deep learning architectures and radiomics analysis, as well as liquid biopsy methods, such as ctDNA mutation profiling and methylation-based assays, for the characterization of pulmonary nodules. Bayesian hierarchical modeling was employed to account for the interdependencies among different tests. Evidence certainty was assessed via the GRADE framework. Results: The CT-Deep approach, when integrated with clinical information, demonstrated the highest sensitivity, with a value of 97.1% and a 90.8%-99.6% credible interval. However, it showed relatively lower specificity, with a value of 67.4% and a 74.4%-92.9% credible interval. Stand-alone liquid biopsy exhibited more balanced operating characteristics, with a sensitivity of 63.1% and a specificity of 82.8%. The hybrid clinical-liquid biopsy strategy showed optimal performance in the summary receiver operating characteristic analysis, with an area under the curve of 0.903. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies, with an I Conclusions: AI-enhanced imaging techniques are particularly valuable for high-sensitivity screening applications, where the risk of false negatives is the greatest. On the other hand, liquid biopsy approaches or their combination with clinical assessment may be more suitable for situations that require high specificity. The findings highlight the need for standardized validation protocols and prospective evaluation of combined modality strategies to address the current limitations in pulmonary nodule characterization.
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.