Skip to main content
Cornell University
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > q-bio > arXiv:2405.10993

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Quantitative Biology > Quantitative Methods

arXiv:2405.10993 (q-bio)
[Submitted on 16 May 2024]

Title:No winners: Performance of lung cancer prediction models depends on screening-detected, incidental, and biopsied pulmonary nodule use cases

Authors:Thomas Z. Li, Kaiwen Xu, Aravind Krishnan, Riqiang Gao, Michael N. Kammer, Sanja Antic, David Xiao, Michael Knight, Yency Martinez, Rafael Paez, Robert J. Lentz, Stephen Deppen, Eric L. Grogan, Thomas A. Lasko, Kim L. Sandler, Fabien Maldonado, Bennett A. Landman
View a PDF of the paper titled No winners: Performance of lung cancer prediction models depends on screening-detected, incidental, and biopsied pulmonary nodule use cases, by Thomas Z. Li and 16 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:Statistical models for predicting lung cancer have the potential to facilitate earlier diagnosis of malignancy and avoid invasive workup of benign disease. Many models have been published, but comparative studies of their utility in different clinical settings in which patients would arguably most benefit are scarce. This study retrospectively evaluated promising predictive models for lung cancer prediction in three clinical settings: lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, incidentally detected pulmonary nodules, and nodules deemed suspicious enough to warrant a biopsy. We leveraged 9 cohorts (n=898, 896, 882, 219, 364, 117, 131, 115, 373) from multiple institutions to assess the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of validated models including logistic regressions on clinical variables and radiologist nodule characterizations, artificial intelligence on chest CTs, longitudinal imaging AI, and multi-modal approaches. We implemented each model from their published literature, re-training the models if necessary, and curated each cohort from primary data sources. We observed that model performance varied greatly across clinical use cases. No single predictive model emerged as a clear winner across all cohorts, but certain models excelled in specific clinical contexts. Single timepoint chest CT AI performed well in lung screening, but struggled to generalize to other clinical settings. Longitudinal imaging and multimodal models demonstrated comparatively promising performance on incidentally-detected nodules. However, when applied to nodules that underwent biopsy, all models underperformed. These results underscore the strengths and limitations of 8 validated predictive models and highlight promising directions towards personalized, noninvasive lung cancer diagnosis.
Comments: Submitted to Radiology: AI
Subjects: Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
Cite as: arXiv:2405.10993 [q-bio.QM]
  (or arXiv:2405.10993v1 [q-bio.QM] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.10993
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Thomas Li [view email]
[v1] Thu, 16 May 2024 14:16:47 UTC (873 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled No winners: Performance of lung cancer prediction models depends on screening-detected, incidental, and biopsied pulmonary nodule use cases, by Thomas Z. Li and 16 other authors
  • View PDF
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
q-bio.QM
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2024-05
Change to browse by:
q-bio

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack