Role of quantitative computed tomography texture analysis in the differentiation of primary lung cancer and granulomatous nodules.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Texture analysis is a computer tool that enables quantification of gray-level patterns, pixel interrelationships, and spectral properties of an image. It can enhance visual methods of image analysis. Primary lung cancer and granulomatous nodules have identical CT imaging features. The purpose of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of CT texture analysis in differentiating lung cancer and granulomas. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 55 patients with primary lung cancer and granulomatous nodules who had contrast-enhanced (CE) and/or non-contrast-enhanced (NCE) CT within 3 months of biopsy. Textural features were extracted from 61 nodules. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare values for nodules. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed and the area under the curve (AUC) calculated with histopathology as outcome. Combinations of features were entered as predictors in logistic regression models and optimal threshold criteria were used to estimate sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The model generated by sum of squares, sum difference, and sum entropy features for NCE CT yielded 88% sensitivity and 92% specificity (AUC =0.90±0.06, P<0.0001). For nodules with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/CT, sensitivity for detection of lung cancer was 79.2% (CI: 57.8-92.9%), specificity was 38.5% (CI: 13.9-68.4%) and accuracy was 64.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative CT texture analysis has the potential to differentiate primary lung cancer and granulomatous lesions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".