External Test of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy Risk Stratification Using European Screening Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Low-dose CT screening reduces lung cancer-related deaths but has high rates of false-positive findings. A deep learning (DL) algorithm could improve nodule risk stratification but requires robust external testing. Purpose To externally test a DL algorithm for nodule malignancy risk estimation using pooled data from three large European lung cancer screening trials. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, a DL algorithm trained on National Lung Screening Trial data was externally tested using baseline CT scans from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial, the Multicentric Italian Lung Detection trial, and the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial. Performance was assessed across the pooled cohort and two subsets: subset A, including indeterminate nodules (5-15 mm); and subset B, including cancers size-matched to benign nodules (1:2 ratio). Performance, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), was compared with the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer (PanCan) model. Results The pooled cohort included 4146 participants (median age, 58 years; 78% male participants; median smoking history, 38 pack-years) with 7614 benign and 180 malignant nodules. The DL algorithm achieved AUCs of 0.98, 0.96, and 0.94 for cancers diagnosed within 1 year, 2 years, and throughout screening, respectively, compared with 0.98, 0.94, and 0.93 (P = .19, .02, and .46, respectively) for the PanCan model. In subset A (129 malignant and 2086 benign nodules), DL significantly outperformed PanCan across the same cancer diagnosis timeframes (respective AUCs: 0.95, 0.94, and 0.90 vs 0.91, 0.88, and 0.86; all P < .05). At 100% sensitivity for cancers diagnosed within 1 year, DL classified 68.1% of benign cases as low risk versus 47.4% for the PanCan model, a 39.4% relative reduction in false-positive findings. In subset B (180 malignant and 360 benign nodules), the AUC of the DL algorithm versus the PanCan model was 0.79 versus 0.60 (P < .01), respectively. Conclusion The DL algorithm outperformed the PanCan model across multiple European screening datasets, demonstrating superior malignancy prediction while substantially reducing false-positive classifications for indeterminate nodules. © RSNA, 2025 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".