Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025
Novel deep-learning analysis for connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease extent assessment on CT: a preliminary cross-sectional study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ito Yuhei, Ichikawa Yasutaka, Murashima Shuichi, Sakuma Hajime, Iwasawa Tae, Arinuma Yoshiyuki, Nakajima Ayako
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Physician's evaluation of interstitial lung disease (ILD) extension with high-resolution CT (HRCT) has limitations such as lack of objectivity and reproducibility. This study aimed to investigate the utility of computer-based deep-learning analysis using QZIP-ILD® software (DL-QZIP) compared with conventional approaches in CTD-related ILD.
METHODS: Patients with CTD-ILD visiting our Rheumatology Centre between December 2020 and April 2024 were recruited. Quantitative scores, including the percentage of lung involvement in ground-glass opacity (QGG), total fibrotic lesion (QFIB), and overall ILD extension encompassing both QGG and QFIB (QILD), calculated by DL-QZIP, were compared with semiquantitative visual method, employing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). We compared the capability of QILD scores to distinguish patients with forced vital capacity (FVC) % <70 in both methods determined by the area under the curve (AUC) by the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis and DeLong's test.
RESULTS: Eighty patients (median age, 66 years; 14 men) were included. Median QGG, QFIB and QILD scores were 3.45%, 2.19% and 5.35% using DL-QZIP, and 3.25%, 4.06% and 8.48% using visual method, respectively. Correlations between DL-QZIP and visual method were 0.75 for QGG, 0.61 for QFIB and 0.75 for QILD. The AUC of QILD scores for FVC% <70 was significantly higher with DL-QZIP (0.833) compared with visual method (0.660) (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: QZIP-ILD® demonstrates superior capability in distinguishing patients with a radiological scenario correlated to severe physiological impairment, while showing relatively good correlations in quantifying the extent on HRCT compared with conventional method in CTD-ILD.
METHODS: Patients with CTD-ILD visiting our Rheumatology Centre between December 2020 and April 2024 were recruited. Quantitative scores, including the percentage of lung involvement in ground-glass opacity (QGG), total fibrotic lesion (QFIB), and overall ILD extension encompassing both QGG and QFIB (QILD), calculated by DL-QZIP, were compared with semiquantitative visual method, employing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). We compared the capability of QILD scores to distinguish patients with forced vital capacity (FVC) % <70 in both methods determined by the area under the curve (AUC) by the receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis and DeLong's test.
RESULTS: Eighty patients (median age, 66 years; 14 men) were included. Median QGG, QFIB and QILD scores were 3.45%, 2.19% and 5.35% using DL-QZIP, and 3.25%, 4.06% and 8.48% using visual method, respectively. Correlations between DL-QZIP and visual method were 0.75 for QGG, 0.61 for QFIB and 0.75 for QILD. The AUC of QILD scores for FVC% <70 was significantly higher with DL-QZIP (0.833) compared with visual method (0.660) (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: QZIP-ILD® demonstrates superior capability in distinguishing patients with a radiological scenario correlated to severe physiological impairment, while showing relatively good correlations in quantifying the extent on HRCT compared with conventional method in CTD-ILD.