Clinical Impact and Generalizability of a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Tool to Risk-Stratify Lung Nodules With CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an imaging classifier for radiology practice can improve lung nodule classification and follow-up. METHODS: A machine learning classifier was developed and trained using imaging data from the National Lung Screening Trial (NSLT) to produce a malignancy risk score (malignancy Similarity Index [mSI]) for individual lung nodules. In addition to NLST cohorts, external cohorts were developed from a tertiary referral lung cancer screening program data set and an external nonscreening data set of all nodules detected on CT. Performance of the mSI combined with Lung-RADS was compared with Lung-RADS alone and the Mayo and Brock risk calculators. RESULTS: We analyzed 963 subjects and 1,331 nodules across these cohorts. The mSI was comparable in accuracy (area under the curve = 0.89) to existing clinical risk models (area under the curve = 0.86-0.88) and independently predictive in the NLST cohort of 704 nodules. When compared with Lung-RADS, the mSI significantly increased sensitivity across all cohorts (25%-117%), with significant increases in specificity in the screening cohorts (17%-33%). When used in conjunction with Lung-RADS, use of mSI would result in earlier diagnoses and reduced follow-up across cohorts, including the potential for early diagnosis in 42% of malignant NLST nodules from prior-year CT scans. CONCLUSION: A computer-assisted diagnosis software improved risk classification from chest CTs of screening and incidentally detected lung nodules compared with Lung-RADS. mSI added predictive value independent of existing radiological and clinical variables. These results suggest the generalizability and potential clinical impact of a tool that is straightforward to implement in practice.
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 | 0.026 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".