Added Value of Computer-aided CT Image Features for Early Lung Cancer Diagnosis with Small Pulmonary Nodules: A Matched Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To test whether computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) approaches can increase the positive predictive value (PPV) and reduce the false-positive rate in lung cancer screening for small nodules compared with human reading by thoracic radiologists. Materials and Methods A matched case-control sample of low-dose computed tomography (CT) studies in 186 participants with 4–20-mm noncalcified lung nodules who underwent biopsy in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was selected. Variables used for matching were age, sex, smoking status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease status, body mass index, study year of the positive screening test, and screening results. Studies before lung biopsy were randomly split into a training set (70 cancers plus 70 benign controls) and a validation set (20 cancers plus 26 benign controls). Image features from within and outside dominant nodules were extracted. A CAD algorithm developed from the training set and a random forest classifier were applied to the validation set to predict biopsy outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare the prediction accuracy of CAD with the NLST investigator’s diagnosis and readings from three experienced and board-certified thoracic radiologists who used contemporary clinical practice guidelines. Results In the validation cohort, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CAD was 0.9154. By default, the sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the NLST investigators were 1.00, 0.00, and 0.43, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and negative predictive value of CAD and the three radiologists’ combined reading were 0.95, 0.88, 0.86, and 0.96 and 0.70, 0.69, 0.64, and 0.75, respectively. Conclusion CAD could increase PPV and reduce the false-positive rate in the early diagnosis of lung cancer. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".