ArticleBMC cancer2024
Deep learning-based characterization of pathological subtypes in lung invasive adenocarcinoma utilizing
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of a deep learning (DL) model based on PET/CT images for distinguishing and predicting various pathological subtypes of invasive lung adenocarcinoma.
methodsA total of 250 patients diagnosed with invasive lung cancer were included in this retrospective study. The pathological subtypes of the cancer were recorded. PET/CT images were analyzed, including measurements and recordings of the short and long diameters on the maximum cross-sectional plane of the CT image, the density of the lesion, and the associated imaging signs. The SUVmax, SUVmean, and the lesion's long and short diameters on the PET image were also measured. A manual diagnostic model was constructed to analyze its diagnostic performance across different pathological subtypes. The acquired images were first denoised, followed by data augmentation to expand the dataset. The U-Net network architecture was then employed for feature extraction and network segmentation. The classification network was based on the ResNet residual network to address the issue of gradient vanishing in deep networks. Batch normalization was applied to ensure the feature matrix followed a distribution with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1. The images were divided into training, validation, and test sets in a ratio of 6:2:2 to train the model. The deep learning model was then constructed to analyze its diagnostic performance across different pathological subtypes.
resultsStatistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed among the four different subtypes in PET/CT imaging performance. The AUC and diagnostic accuracy of the manual diagnostic model for different pathological subtypes were as follows: APA: 0.647, 0.664; SPA: 0.737, 0.772; PPA: 0.698, 0.780; LPA: 0.849, 0.904. Chi-square tests indicated significant statistical differences among these subtypes (P < 0.05). The AUC and diagnostic accuracy of the deep learning model for the different pathological subtypes were as follows: APA: 0.854, 0.864; SPA: 0.930, 0.936; PPA: 0.878, 0.888; LPA: 0.900, 0.920. Chi-square tests also indicated significant statistical differences among these subtypes (P < 0.05). The Delong test showed that the diagnostic performance of the deep learning model was superior to that of the manual diagnostic model (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe deep learning model based on PET/CT images exhibits high diagnostic efficacy in distinguishing and diagnosing various pathological subtypes of invasive lung adenocarcinoma, demonstrating the significant potential of deep learning techniques in accurately identifying and predicting disease subgroups.
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.