A benchmark of deep learning approaches to predict lung cancer risk using national lung screening trial cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) methods have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in assisting with lung cancer risk prediction tasks using computed tomography (CT) scans. However, the lack of comprehensive comparison and validation of state-of-the-art (SOTA) models in practical settings limits their clinical application. This study aims to review and analyze current SOTA deep learning models for lung cancer risk prediction (malignant-benign classification). To evaluate our model's general performance, we selected 253 out of 467 patients from a subset of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) who had CT scans without contrast, which are the most commonly used, and divided them into training and test cohorts. The CT scans were preprocessed into 2D-image and 3D-volume formats according to their nodule annotations. We evaluated ten 3D and eleven 2D SOTA deep learning models, which were pretrained on large-scale general-purpose datasets (Kinetics and ImageNet) and radiological datasets (3DSeg-8, nnUnet and RadImageNet), for their lung cancer risk prediction performance. Our results showed that 3D-based deep learning models generally perform better than 2D models. On the test cohort, the best-performing 3D model achieved an AUROC of 0.86, while the best 2D model reached 0.79. The lowest AUROCs for the 3D and 2D models were 0.70 and 0.62, respectively. Furthermore, pretraining on large-scale radiological image datasets did not show the expected performance advantage over pretraining on general-purpose datasets. Both 2D and 3D deep learning models can handle lung cancer risk prediction tasks effectively, although 3D models generally have superior performance than their 2D competitors. Our findings highlight the importance of carefully selecting pretrained datasets and model architectures for lung cancer risk prediction. Overall, these results have important implications for the development and clinical integration of DL-based tools in lung cancer screening.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".