MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7149220147

External Test of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy Risk Stratification Using European Screening Data

2025· article· en· W7149220147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noa Antonissen, Kiran Vaidhya Venkadesh, Renate Dinnessen, Ernst T. Scholten, Zaigham Saghir, Mario Silva, Ugo Pastorino, Grigory Sidorenkov, Marjolein A Heuvelmans, Geertruida H. de Bock, Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein, Pim de Jong, Harry J.M. Groen, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, Hester A Gietema, Mathias Prokop, Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop, Colin Jacobs, NELSON-POP consortium, MS Radiologie, Researchgr. Systems Radiology, Cancer, Circulatory Health, Infection & Immunity, Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cells

Bibliographic record

VenueUtrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalignancyLung cancer screeningLung cancerNodule (geology)CohortRetrospective cohort studyNational Lung Screening Trial
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUtrecht University Repository (Utrecht University)Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207