Volumetric Analysis: Effect on Diagnosis and Management of Indeterminate Solid Pulmonary Nodules in Routine Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of volumetric analysis on the diagnosis and management of indeterminate solid pulmonary nodules in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective study with 107 computed tomography (CT) cases of solid pulmonary nodules (range, 6-15 mm), 57 pathology-proven malignancies (lung cancer, n = 34; metastasis, n = 23), and 50 benign nodules. Nodules were evaluated on a total of 309 CT scans (average number of CTs/nodule, 2.9 [range, 2-7]). CT scans were from multiple institutions with variable technique. Nine radiologists (attendings, n = 3; fellows, n = 3; residents, n = 3) were asked their level of suspicion for malignancy (low/moderate or high) and management recommendation (no follow-up, CT follow-up, or care escalation) for baseline and follow-up studies first without and then with volumetric analysis data. Effect of volumetry on diagnosis and management was assessed by generalized linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Volumetric analysis improved sensitivity ( P = 0.009) and allowed earlier recognition ( P < 0.05) of malignant nodules. Attending radiologists showed higher sensitivity in recognition of malignant nodules ( P = 0.03) and recommendation of care escalation ( P < 0.001) compared with trainees. Volumetric analysis altered management of high suspicion nodules only in the fellow group ( P = 0.008). κ Statistics for suspicion for malignancy and recommended management were fair to substantial (0.38-0.66) and fair to moderate (0.33-0.50). Volumetric analysis improved interobserver variability for identification of nodule malignancy from 0.52 to 0.66 ( P = 0.004) only on the second follow-up study. CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric analysis of indeterminate solid pulmonary nodules in routine clinical practice can result in improved sensitivity and earlier identification of malignant nodules. The effect of volumetric analysis on management recommendations is variable and influenced by reader experience.
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 | 0.008 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".