ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Segmentation-based deep learning emphysema quantification using chest CT: improved accuracy and robustness vs LAA-950.
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a deep learning segmentation algorithm to enable accurate, reliable emphysema quantification while improving agreement with radiologist assessments and pulmonary function tests. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe model was developed using retrospective virtual and clinical datasets. Virtual data enabled pre-training using ground truth across controlled parameters, including scanners, doses, and reconstruction kernels, while clinical data enabled fine-tuning with expert-annotated emphysema masks. Segmentation accuracy was quantified using the Dice coefficient, and robustness was quantified using emphysema percentage consistency across imaging conditions. Model-based emphysema percentage was correlated with Fleischner visual scores (ordinal; 0-5) and pulmonary function tests (DLCO, FEV
resultsVirtual data included 20 human models (mean age: 43 years ± 11 [SD], 10 men), and clinical data included multi-center cohorts of 101 patients (C1; 57 years ± 8, 54 men), 23 patients (C2; 57 years ± 7, 14 men), and 1159 patients (C3; 65 years ± 9, 586 men). The model outperformed LAA-950 in segmentation accuracy, achieving higher Dice scores across virtual (76.6% ± 8.8 vs 51.5% ± 23.5), C1 (48.4% ± 24.2 vs 22.5% ± 20.2), and C2 (64.8% ± 9.3 vs 32.7% ± 16.8) cohorts. Furthermore, analysis showed improved bias and limits of agreement (C1; 1.0% ± 4.3 vs 2.1% ± 15.1) and stronger correlations with visual scoring (C1; 0.77 vs 0.47) and pulmonary function tests (C3; DLCO multivariate R²: 0.31-0.32 vs 0.21-0.25).
conclusionThe proposed model provided a promising, clinically relevant alternative to LAA-950, improving accuracy and consistency in emphysema quantification and further aligning with radiologist assessments and lung function metrics. KEY POINTS: Question Can deep learning-based emphysema segmentation on CT improve the accuracy and robustness of emphysema quantification relative to the traditional LAA-950 biomarker? Findings The deep learning model outperformed LAA-950 in terms of accuracy and reproducibility and demonstrated stronger correlations with visual emphysema scores and pulmonary function tests. Clinical relevance The improved performance of the deep learning approach enables more reliable emphysema quantification across imaging conditions, with closer agreement to radiologist assessments and pulmonary function tests.
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.