Comparing Deep Learning Models for Lung Nodule Detection on Photon-Counting CT Images in a Non-Screening Setting
Thieme, L.; Petersen, E.; Geissler, K.; Müller-Groh, L.; Oeltze-Jafra, S.; Shin, H.-o.; Scharm, S. C.; Wacker, F.; Ahmadi, Z.; Schenk, A.
Show abstract
Background: Comprehensive evaluations of lung nodule detection methods remain limited, particularly regarding data from clinical routine, novel photon-counting CT (PCCT) technology, and the comparison of academic and commercial models. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study collected 1860 routine PCCT scans acquired at Hannover Medical School from 2021 to 2024. We compared four deep-learning-based lung nodule detection models, which were developed for conventional CT, namely the publicly available TotalSegmentator, nnDetection, and RadYOLO methods, as well as a commercial lung computer-aided detection (CAD) system. We evaluated the inter-model agreement in an unannotated cohort (n=1699), sensitivity in a smaller cohort of 25 manually annotated scans, and false positives as detections in 136 report-negative scans. Results: In the unannotated cohort, the commercial CAD system detected 7071, TotalSegmentator 4264, nnDetection 5254, and RadYOLO 3122 nodules. Overall, the inter-model agreement was low, and the models produced substantially different candidate nodules. Approximately 1300 nodules were detected by all models, representing 18.7% - 42.8% of each model's detections. 15.4% - 37.4% of a model's detections did not match any other model. The models showed moderate sensitivity (between 0.71, 95%-CI [0.64, 0.77], and 0.83, 95%-CI [0.77, 0.88]), and TotalSegmentator and RadYOLO produced few false positives per scan (both 0.85, 95%-CI [0.70, 1.02]). Conclusion: The lung nodules detected by four deep learning models showed high variation and a lack of consensus on clinical PCCT data. These findings highlight the importance of model benchmarking and local validation when deploying models in real-world clinical workflows.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Observer agreement and clinical significance of chest CT reporting in patients suspected of COVID-19 94%
- From Community Acquired Pneumonia to COVID-19: A Deep Learning Based Method for Quantitative Analysis of COVID-19 on thick-section CT Scans 93%
- Automated airway quantification associates with mortality in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- High-Dimensional Multinomial Multiclass Severity Scoring of COVID-19 Pneumonia Using CT Radiomics Features and Machine Learning Algorithms 94%
- Content-based image retrieval assists radiologists in diagnosing eye and orbital mass lesions in MRI 93%
- MultiCOVID: a multi modal Deep Learning approach for COVID-19 diagnosis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Auto-detection of motion artifacts on CT pulmonary angiograms with a physician-trained AI algorithm 96%
- Volumetric lung cancer screening reduces unnecessary low-dose computed tomography scans: results from a single-centre prospective trial on 4,119 subjects 96%
- A Machine Learning Ensemble Based on Radiomics to Predict BI-RADS Category and Reduce the Biopsy Rate of Ultrasound-Detected Suspicious Breast Masses 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Enhancing Semantic Segmentation in Chest X-Ray Images through Image Preprocessing: ps-KDE for Pixel-wise Substitution by Kernel Density Estimation 93%
- ai-corona : Radiologist-Assistant Deep Learning Framework for COVID-19 Diagnosis in Chest CT Scans 93%
- Navigated ultrasound bronchoscopy with integrated positron emission tomography - A human feasibility study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Fully Automated Explainable Abdominal CT Contrast Media Phase Classification Using Organ Segmentation and Machine Learning 94%
- Phase Recognition in Contrast-Enhanced CT Scans based on Deep Learning and Random Sampling 92%
- SCU-Net: A deep learning method for segmentation and quantification of breast arterial calcifications on mammograms 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.