Cited by 27

Differentiating minimally invasive and invasive adenocarcinomas in patients with solitary sub-solid pulmonary nodules with a radiomics nomogram

Feng, B., Chen, X., Chen, Y., Li, Z., Hao, Y., Zhang, C., Li, R., Liao, Y. +3 more·2019·Clinical Radiology

Abstract

Aim To evaluate the preoperative differentiation between the minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) and invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC) in patients with sub-solid pulmonary nodules using a radiomics nomogram. Materials and methods A total of 100 patients with sub-solid pulmonary nodules who had pathologically confirmed MIA (43 patients, 13 male and 30 female) or IAC (57 patients, 26 male and 31 female) were recruited retrospectively. Radiomics features were extracted from computed tomography (CT) images. A radiomics signature was constructed by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) algorithm. Solid presence, lesion size, shape regularity, and margins of pulmonary nodules were assessed to construct a subjective finding model. An integrated model of radiomics signatures and CT-based subjective findings, which was presented as a radiomics nomogram, was developed based on a multivariate logistic regression. The nomogram performance was assessed by its calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness. Results The radiomics signature, which consisted of 11 radiomics features, showed good discrimination accuracy. The radiomics nomogram showed good calibration and discrimination in the training set (AUC [area under the curve] 0.943; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.895-0.991) and validation set (AUC 0.912; 95% CI: 0.780-1.000). The radiomics nomogram was determined to be clinically useful in the decision curve analysis (DCA). Conclusion The proposed radiomics…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crad.2019.03.018

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a study by Sun et al., a combined radiographic-radiomics model with AUC 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86) outperformed a radiographic-only model with AUC 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.81) in predicting invasiveness in the validation set of pure ground glass nodules.

    “The combined radiographic–radiomics model (AUC 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69–0.86) outperformed the radiographic-only model (AUC 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62–0.81) in predicting invasiveness in the validation set [28,29].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Feng, B., Chen, X., Chen, Y., Li, Z., Hao, Y., Zhang, C., Li, R., Liao, Y., Zhang, X., Huang, Y., & Long, W.
Venue
Clinical Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
74
Issue
7
Pages
570.e1-570.e11
ISSN
0009-9260
Cited by
27
References
1
Language
en
Funders
Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (2016GXNSFBA380160)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review