European radiology experimental · 2025
Artificial intelligence-based automated matching of pulmonary nodules on follow-up chest CT.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fink Nicola, Sperl Jonathan I, Rueckel Johannes, Stüber Theresa, Goller Sophia S, Rudolph Jan, Escher Felix, Aschauer Theresia, Hoppe Boj F, Ricke Jens, Sabel Bastian O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The growing demand for follow-up imaging highlights the need for tools supporting the assessment of pulmonary nodules over time. We evaluated the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based system for automated nodule matching.
METHODS: In this single-center study, patients with nodules and ≤ 2 chest computed tomography (CT) examinations were retrospectively selected. An AI-based algorithm was used for automated nodule detection and matching. The matching rate and the causes for incorrect matching were evaluated for the ten largest lesions (5-30 mm in diameter) registered on baseline CT. The dependence of the matching rate on nodule number and localization was also analyzed.
RESULTS: One hundred patients (46 females), with a median age of 62 years (interquartile range 57-69), and 253 CTs were included. Focusing on the ten largest lesions, 1,141 lesions were identified, of which 36 (3.2%) were other structures incorrectly identified as nodules (false-positives). Of the 1,105 identified nodules, 964 (87.2%) were correctly detected and matched. The matching rate for nodules registered in both baseline and follow-up scans was 97.8%. The matching rate per case ranged 80.0-100.0% (median 90.0%). Correct matching rate decreased in follow-up examinations to over 50 nodules (p = 0.003), with an overrepresentation of missed matching. Matching rates were higher in parenchymal (91.8%), peripheral (84.4%), and juxtavascular (82.4%) nodules than in juxtaphrenic nodules (71.1%) (p < 0.001). Missed matching was overrepresented in juxtavascular, and incorrect assignment in juxtaphrenic nodules.
CONCLUSION: The correct automated-matching rate of metastatic pulmonary nodules in follow-up examinations was high, but it depends on localization and a number of nodules.
RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The algorithm enables precise follow-up matching of pulmonary nodules, potentially providing a solid basis for standardized and accurate evaluations. Understanding the algorithm's strengths and weaknesses based on nodule localization and number enhances the interpretation of AI-based results.
KEY POINTS: The AI algorithm achieved a correct nodule matching rate of 87.2% and up to 97.8% when considering nodules detected in both baseline and follow-up scans. Matching accuracy depended on nodule number and localization. This algorithm has the potential to support response evaluation criteria in solid tumor-based evaluations in clinical practice.
METHODS: In this single-center study, patients with nodules and ≤ 2 chest computed tomography (CT) examinations were retrospectively selected. An AI-based algorithm was used for automated nodule detection and matching. The matching rate and the causes for incorrect matching were evaluated for the ten largest lesions (5-30 mm in diameter) registered on baseline CT. The dependence of the matching rate on nodule number and localization was also analyzed.
RESULTS: One hundred patients (46 females), with a median age of 62 years (interquartile range 57-69), and 253 CTs were included. Focusing on the ten largest lesions, 1,141 lesions were identified, of which 36 (3.2%) were other structures incorrectly identified as nodules (false-positives). Of the 1,105 identified nodules, 964 (87.2%) were correctly detected and matched. The matching rate for nodules registered in both baseline and follow-up scans was 97.8%. The matching rate per case ranged 80.0-100.0% (median 90.0%). Correct matching rate decreased in follow-up examinations to over 50 nodules (p = 0.003), with an overrepresentation of missed matching. Matching rates were higher in parenchymal (91.8%), peripheral (84.4%), and juxtavascular (82.4%) nodules than in juxtaphrenic nodules (71.1%) (p < 0.001). Missed matching was overrepresented in juxtavascular, and incorrect assignment in juxtaphrenic nodules.
CONCLUSION: The correct automated-matching rate of metastatic pulmonary nodules in follow-up examinations was high, but it depends on localization and a number of nodules.
RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The algorithm enables precise follow-up matching of pulmonary nodules, potentially providing a solid basis for standardized and accurate evaluations. Understanding the algorithm's strengths and weaknesses based on nodule localization and number enhances the interpretation of AI-based results.
KEY POINTS: The AI algorithm achieved a correct nodule matching rate of 87.2% and up to 97.8% when considering nodules detected in both baseline and follow-up scans. Matching accuracy depended on nodule number and localization. This algorithm has the potential to support response evaluation criteria in solid tumor-based evaluations in clinical practice.