The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Part I. Morphologic Evaluation for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Lesions
Abstract
The solitary pulmonary nodule is a common radiologic abnormality that is often detected incidentally. Although most solitary pulmonary nodules have benign causes, many represent stage I lung cancers and must be distinguished from benign nodules in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Evaluation of specific morphologic features of a solitary pulmonary nodule with conventional imaging techniques can help differentiate benign from malignant nodules and obviate further costly assessment. Small size and smooth, well-defined margins are suggestive of but not diagnostic for benignity. Lobulated contour as well as an irregular or spiculated margin with distortion of adjacent vessels are typically associated with malignancy. There is considerable overlap in the internal characteristics (eg, attenuation, cavitation, wall thickness) of benign and malignant nodules. The presence of intranodular fat is a reliable indicator of a hamartoma. The presence and pattern of calcification can also help differentiate benign from malignant nodules. Computed tomography (CT) (particularly thin-section CT) is 10-20 times more sensitive than standard radiography and allows objective, quantitative assessment of calcification. Initial evaluation often results in nonspecific findings, in which case nodules are classified as indeterminate and require further evaluation to exclude malignancy. Growth rate assessment, Bayesian analysis, contrast material-enhanced CT, positron emission tomography, and transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy can be useful in this regard.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
MacMahon, H., Naidich, D. P., Goo, J. M., Lee, K. S., Leung, A. N. C., Mayo, J. R., Mehta, A. C., Ohno, Y., Powell, C. A., Prokop, M., et al. (2017) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161659 · Cited by 2,491
Acetabular Labral Tears Rarely Occur in the Absence of Bony Abnormalities
Wenger, D. E., Kendell, K. R., Miner, M. R., & Trousdale, R. T. (2004) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000136903.01368.20 · Cited by 428
Shen, S., Han, S. X., Aberle, D. R., Bui, A. A., & Hsu, W. (2019) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.01.048 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Erasmus, J. J., Connolly, J. E., McAdams, H. P., & Roggli, V. L.
- Venue
- RadioGraphics
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-58
- ISSN
- 0271-5333 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1323
- OpenAlex
- W2101610532
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Part I. Morphologic Evaluation for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Lesions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiographics.20.1.g00ja0343
- The paper
- Erasmus, J. J., Connolly, J. E., McAdams, H. P., & Roggli, V. L. (2000). Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: Part I. Morphologic Evaluation for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Lesions. RadioGraphics. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.20.1.g00ja0343
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.