Deep learning in pulmonary nodule detection and segmentation: a systematic review
European Radiology, ISSN: 1432-1084, Vol: 35, Issue: 1, Page: 255-266
2025
- 1Citations
- 32Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Objectives: The accurate detection and precise segmentation of lung nodules on computed tomography are key prerequisites for early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of lung cancer. This study was designed to compare detection and segmentation methods for pulmonary nodules using deep-learning techniques to fill methodological gaps and biases in the existing literature. Methods: This study utilized a systematic review with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library databases up to May 10, 2023. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 criteria was used to assess the risk of bias and was adjusted with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging. The study analyzed and extracted model performance, data sources, and task-focus information. Results: After screening, we included nine studies meeting our inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2019 and 2023 and predominantly used public datasets, with the Lung Image Database Consortium Image Collection and Image Database Resource Initiative and Lung Nodule Analysis 2016 being the most common. The studies focused on detection, segmentation, and other tasks, primarily utilizing Convolutional Neural Networks for model development. Performance evaluation covered multiple metrics, including sensitivity and the Dice coefficient. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential power of deep learning in lung nodule detection and segmentation. It underscores the importance of standardized data processing, code and data sharing, the value of external test datasets, and the need to balance model complexity and efficiency in future research. Clinical relevance statement: Deep learning demonstrates significant promise in autonomously detecting and segmenting pulmonary nodules. Future research should address methodological shortcomings and variability to enhance its clinical utility. Key Points: Deep learning shows potential in the detection and segmentation of pulmonary nodules. There are methodological gaps and biases present in the existing literature. Factors such as external validation and transparency affect the clinical application.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85198093145&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10907-0; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38985185; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-024-10907-0; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10907-0; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-024-10907-0
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know