ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024
Fusing Diverse Decision Rules in 3D-Radiomics for Assisting Diagnosis of Lung Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 3D deep learning model to predict the recurrence of stage IA invasive lung adenocarcinoma after sub-lobar resection: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop an interpretable diagnostic model for subtyping of pulmonary adenocarcinoma, including minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), and invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC), by integrating 3D-radiomic features and clinical data. Data from multiple hospitals were collected, and 10 key features were selected from 1600 3D radiomic signatures and 11 radiological features. Diverse decision rules were extracted using ensemble learning methods (gradient boosting, random forest, and AdaBoost), fused, ranked, and selected via RuleFit and SHAP to construct a rule-based diagnostic model. The model's performance was evaluated using AUC, precision, accuracy, recall, and F1-score and compared with other models. The rule-based diagnostic model exhibited excellent performance in the training, testing, and validation cohorts, with AUC values of 0.9621, 0.9529, and 0.8953, respectively. This model outperformed counterparts relying solely on selected features and previous research models. Specifically, the AUC values for the previous research models in the three cohorts were 0.851, 0.893, and 0.836. It is noteworthy that individual models employing GBDT, random forest, and AdaBoost demonstrated AUC values of 0.9391, 0.8681, and 0.9449 in the training cohort, 0.9093, 0.8722, and 0.9363 in the testing cohort, and 0.8440, 0.8640, and 0.8750 in the validation cohort, respectively. These results highlight the superiority of the rule-based diagnostic model in the assessment of lung adenocarcinoma subtypes, while also providing insights into the performance of individual models. Integrating diverse decision rules enhanced the accuracy and interpretability of the diagnostic model for lung adenocarcinoma subtypes. This approach bridges the gap between complex predictive models and clinical utility, offering valuable support to healthcare professionals and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.