ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Radiomics machine learning models for lung cancer early diagnosis in heterogenous multicentre chest CT data: LIBRA study results.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe developed and validated radiomics models for lung cancer prediction in indeterminate pulmonary nodules that retain performance in heterogenous data from multiple centres. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe retrospective Lung Imaging Biobank for Radiomics and AI (LIBRA) study recruited 1,026 patients (2,071 computed tomography scans) with 5-to-30-mm lung nodules from seven UK hospitals (01/07/2020-30/09/2022). Benign and malignant nodules were segmented for feature extraction using PyRadiomics. Principal component analysis reduced feature dimensionality to twenty components. Logistic regression models using ComBat correction, fixed effects or random effects to mitigate for disparate data across study centres were compared. Models were fit to the whole dataset and evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation. Internal-external validation assessed between-centre heterogeneity. Models were benchmarked against volume, Brock score and scrambled voxels. Calibration was assessed using calibration curves. Decision-curve analysis was used to assess net benefit.
resultsBetween-centre discrimination variability was observed with an area under the curve (AUC) ranging 0.75-0.91. The mixed-effects model provided better discrimination over ComBat or fixed effects alone (AUC 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.93) versus 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.78) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90), respectively (p < 0.0001 and 0.003, respectively) in cross-validation. Radiomics features retained significance in multivariable models including established clinical features. The final model was superior to models developed using volume alone, Brock score, and scrambled-voxels. The model was well calibrated (intercept -0.036, slope 0.89 with net benefit compared to volume or Brock score alone.
conclusionRadiomics models show between-centre heterogeneity, with resilience best achieved with mixed-effects models. The final model had high performance with net benefit over established risk models. KEY POINTS: Question Can heterogeneous data from multiple centres be used to predict lung nodule malignancy risk? Findings Radiomics cancer prediction models must account for heterogeneity to maintain performance between different centres. The mixed-effects model achieved AUC 0.91 (cross-validation) for cancer prediction. Relevance statement The model provided net benefit for nodule investigation over Brock score and volume alone and could assist in decision-making following prospective validation.
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.