Back

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.

2026-09-29 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.09.28.26364159 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.