Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41395623›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

An interpretable

Wenfeng Feng, Xingjian Wang, Haifeng Cai, Shunxiang Liu, Chunling Liu, Yaqi Wang, Jingwu Li, Yongliang Liu, Lixiu Cao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Wenfeng Feng *Department of Medical Imaging, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Xingjian Wang *Department of Nuclear Medicine Imaging, Tangshan People's Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Haifeng Cai *Department of Breast Surgery, Tangshan People's Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Shunxiang LiuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine Imaging, Tangshan People's Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Chunling LiuDepartment of Pathology, Tangshan People's Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Yaqi WangDepartment of Breast Surgery, Tangshan People's Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Jingwu LiDepartment of Central Laboratory, Hebei Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Yongliang LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tangshan People's Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei, China.
Lixiu CaoDepartment of Nuclear Medicine Imaging, Tangshan People's Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the potential of an interpretable radiomics model based on Materials and methods: A total of 177 patients with extra-adrenal malignancies and indeterminate adrenal nodules (74 metastases; 103 benign lesions) were included and randomly assigned to training and testing sets in a 7:3 ratio. Radiomics features were extracted separately from the CT and PET components of PET/CT examinations. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and multivariate logistic regression (LR) were used to identify independent predictive radiomics factors. Based on these features, single-modality CT, PET, and combined PET/CT radiomics models were constructed using four machine learning algorithms: Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), LR, and Decision Tree (DT). The best-performing algorithm for each modality determined through cross-validation was selected to establish the final models. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and decision curve analysis (DCA). DeLong test was used to compare the AUCs between models. Internal validation of the best-performing radiomics model was conducted by bootstrapping to assess potential optimism. Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) was utilized to interpret the best-performing radiomics model. Results: The optimal algorithms identified were LR for the CT model and SVM for both the PET and integrated PET/CT models. In the testing set, the AUC values were 0.811 (95% CI: 0.694-0.928) for the CT model and 0.879 (95%CI: 0.789- 0.970) for the PET model. The combined PET/CT model integrating both CT and PET radiomics features achieved an AUC of 0.915 (95%CI: 0.834-0.997), which was significantly higher than that of the CT model alone (p < 0.05). DCA confirmed superior clinical utility of the combined PET/CT model across most threshold probabilities compared to the single-modality models. Bootstrap-corrected internal validation showed an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.919 (95% CI: 0.884-0.964), with minimal observed optimism (0.003, 95% CI: -0.002-0.007). SHAP analysis showed that a texture feature derived from the gray level size zone matrix of PET images was the most significant predictor of AMs. Conclusions: The interpretable radiomics model based on combined PET/CT data provides a non-invasive tool for predicting AMs in cancer patients with indeterminate adrenal nodules. By integrating features from both modalities, this approach significantly improves diagnostic performance and holds strong potential to support personalized treatment.

Indexed as

adrenal metastasesindeterminate adrenal nodulesmachine learningPET/CTradiomics

Identifiers

PMID41395623
PMCPMC12695529

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.