Assessing the accuracy of a deep learning method to risk stratify indeterminate pulmonary nodules
Open accessAbstract
Rationale: The management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) remains challenging, resulting in invasive procedures and delays in diagnosis and treatment. Strategies to decrease the rate of unnecessary invasive procedures and optimize surveillance regimens are needed. Objectives: To develop and validate a deep learning method to improve the management of IPNs. Methods: A Lung Cancer Prediction Convolutional Neural Network model was trained using computed tomography images of IPNs from the National Lung Screening Trial, internally validated, and externally tested on cohorts from two academic institutions. Measurements and Main Results: The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the external validation cohorts were 83.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.4–90.7%) and 91.9% (95% CI, 88.7–94.7%), compared with 78.1% (95% CI, 68.7–86.4%) and 81.9 (95% CI, 76.1–87.1%), respectively, for a commonly used clinical risk model for incidental nodules. Using 5% and 65% malignancy thresholds defining low- and high-risk categories, the overall net reclassifications in the validation cohorts for cancers and benign nodules compared with the Mayo model were 0.34 (Vanderbilt) and 0.30 (Oxford) as a rule-in test, and 0.33 (Vanderbilt) and 0.58 (Oxford) as a rule-out test. Compared with traditional risk prediction models, the Lung Cancer Prediction Convolutional Neural Network was associated with improved accuracy in predicting the likelihood of disease at each threshold of management and in our external validation cohorts. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that this deep learning algorithm can correctly reclassify IPNs into low- or high-risk categories in more than a third of cancers and benign nodules when compared with conventional risk models, potentially reducing the number of unnecessary invasive procedures and delays in diagnosis.
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
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 190
- Authors
- Massion, P. P., Antic, S., Ather, S., Arteta, C., Brabec, J., Chen, H., Declerck, J., Dufek, D., Hickes, W., Kadir, T., Kunst, J., Landman, B. A., Munden, R. F., Novotny, P., Peschl, H., Pickup, L. C., Santos, C., Smith, G. T., Talwar, A., & Gleeson, F.
- Affiliations
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (US)
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
- Optellum Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom
- Masaryk University (CZ)
- Department of Biostatistics, and
- Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
- Corresponding author
- Massion, Pierre P.
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-07-01
- Volume
- 202
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 241-249
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- PMC
- PMC7365375
- OpenAlex
- W3020045953
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 14.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (U01CA186145, U01CA152662)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Keywords
- indeterminate pulmonary nodules, deep learning, risk stratification, lung cancer prediction, convolutional neural networks, computed tomography, National Lung Screening Trial, lung cancer surveillance, unnecessary invasive procedures
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, United States, Neural Networks, Computer, Multiple Pulmonary Nodules
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