Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of machine learning methods for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer from 18F-FDG PET/CT images

Open access
Wang, Hongkai, Zhou, Zongwei, Li, Yingci, Chen, Zhonghua, Lu, Peiou, Wang, Wenzhi, Liu, Wanyu, Yu, Lijuan·2017·EJNMMI Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: F-FDG PET/CT images. Another objective was to compare the discriminative power of the recently popular PET/CT texture features with the widely used diagnostic features such as tumor size, CT value, SUV, image contrast, and intensity standard deviation. The four classical machine learning methods included random forests, support vector machines, adaptive boosting, and artificial neural network. The deep learning method was the convolutional neural networks (CNN). The five methods were evaluated using 1397 lymph nodes collected from PET/CT images of 168 patients, with corresponding pathology analysis results as gold standard. The comparison was conducted using 10 times 10-fold cross-validation based on the criterion of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy (ACC), and area under the ROC curve (AUC). For each classical method, different input features were compared to select the optimal feature set. Based on the optimal feature set, the classical methods were compared with CNN, as well as with human doctors from our institute. RESULTS: For the classical methods, the diagnostic features resulted in 81~85% ACC and 0.87~0.92 AUC, which were significantly higher than the results of texture features. CNN's sensitivity, specificity, ACC, and AUC were 84, 88, 86, and 0.91, respectively. There was no significant difference between the results of CNN and the best classical method. The sensitivity, specificity, and ACC of human doctors were 73, 90, and 82, respectively. All the five machine learning methods had higher sensitivities but lower specificities than human doctors. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the performance of CNN is not significantly different from the best classical methods and human doctors for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of NSCLC from PET/CT images. Because CNN does not need tumor segmentation or feature calculation, it is more convenient and more objective than the classical methods. However, CNN does not make use of the import diagnostic features, which have been proved more discriminative than the texture features for classifying small-sized lymph nodes. Therefore, incorporating the diagnostic features into CNN is a promising direction for future research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13550-017-0260-9

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Wang, H., Zhou, Z., Li, Y., Chen, Z., Lu, P., Wang, W., Liu, W., & Yu, L.
Venue
EJNMMI Research
Published
2017-01-28
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
11-11
ISSN
2191-219X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2580434384
Cited by
249
References
5
FWCI
16.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Comparison of machine learning methods for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer from 18F-FDG PET/CT images. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13550-017-0260-9
The paper
Wang, H., Zhou, Z., Li, Y., Chen, Z., Lu, P., Wang, W., Liu, W., & Yu, L. (2017). Comparison of machine learning methods for classifying mediastinal lymph node metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer from 18F-FDG PET/CT images. EJNMMI Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-017-0260-9

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.