ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Codebook-guided multi-cue normality modeling for pulmonary CT anomaly detection.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Automated anomaly detection from chest computed tomography (CT) may support research on pulmonary image triage without requiring exhaustive abnormal annotations. Supervised methods depend on costly expert labels, while many existing normal-only methods rely predominantly on a single anomaly cue. In pulmonary CT, heterogeneous lesion appearance and variation across slices and acquisition sources may reduce the reliability of single-cue scoring. This study develops a codebook-guided framework that integrates complementary cues for abnormality detection and spatial heatmap generation. Methods: The framework combines residual vector-quantized reconstruction, transformer-based token discrimination learned through codebook-guided latent perturbation, and quantization-distance scoring. The primary benchmark combined three public CT datasets. Slice-level evaluation used a visually screened, lesion-enriched subset, whereas patient-level evaluation retained all valid lung-containing slices and aggregated the highest 10% of slice scores by their mean. Patient-level thresholds were calibrated using normal validation patients only. Quantitative localization was additionally evaluated on 100 LIDC-IDRI cases containing nodules marked by at least three radiologists. Results: The proposed method achieved a slice-level AUROC of 0.9218. At the patient level, it achieved an AUROC of Discussion: The findings indicate that multi-cue normality modeling remains effective after patient-level aggregation and provides quantitative localization capability on an external nodule cohort. Same-source comparisons within COVID-CT-MD reduce, but do not eliminate, concern about dataset-source confounding. Because the study used retrospective public datasets and lacked prospective patient-level external validation, the results should be interpreted as methodological evidence rather than clinical 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.