Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Can Predict Lymph Node Malignancy from Endobronchial Ultrasound Transbronchial Needle Aspiration Images for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for lung cancer staging is operator dependent, resulting in high rates of non-diagnostic lymph node (LN) samples. We hypothesized that an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm can consistently and reliably predict nodal metastases from the ultrasound images of LNs when compared to pathology. METHODS: In this analysis of prospectively recorded B-mode images of mediastinal LNs during EBUS-TBNA, we used transfer learning to build an end-to-end ensemble of three deep neural networks (ResNet152V2, InceptionV3, and DenseNet201). Model hyperparameters were tuned, and the optimal version(s) of each model was trained using 80% of the images. A learned ensemble (multi-layer perceptron) of the optimal versions was applied to the remaining 20% of the images (Test Set). All predictions were compared to the final pathology from nodal biopsies and/or surgical specimen. RESULTS: A total of 2,569 LN images from 773 patients were used. The Training Set included 2,048 LNs, of which 70.02% were benign and 29.98% were malignant on pathology. The Testing Set included 521 LNs, of which 70.06% were benign and 29.94% were malignant on pathology. The final ensemble model had an overall accuracy of 80.63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.93-83.97%), 43.23% sensitivity (95% CI: 35.30-51.41%), 96.91% specificity (95% CI: 94.54-98.45%), 85.90% positive predictive value (95% CI: 76.81-91.80%), 79.68% negative predictive value (95% CI: 77.34-81.83%), and AUC of 0.701 (95% CI: 0.646-0.755) for malignancy. CONCLUSION: There now exists an AI algorithm which can identify nodal metastases based only on ultrasound images with good overall accuracy, specificity, and positive predictive value. Further optimization with larger sample sizes would be beneficial prior to clinical application.
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) | 0.000 | 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".