Deep learning–based differentiation of invasive adenocarcinomas from preinvasive or minimally invasive lesions among pulmonary subsolid nodules
Objectives To evaluate a deep learning–based model using model-generated segmentation masks to differentiate invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma (IPA) from preinvasive lesions or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) on CT, making comparisons with radiologist-derived measurements of solid portion si...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2021-08, Vol.31 (8), p.6239-6247 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 6247 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 6239 |
container_title | European radiology |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Park, Sohee Park, Gwangbeen Lee, Sang Min Kim, Wooil Park, Hyunho Jung, Kyuhwan Seo, Joon Beom |
description | Objectives
To evaluate a deep learning–based model using model-generated segmentation masks to differentiate invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma (IPA) from preinvasive lesions or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) on CT, making comparisons with radiologist-derived measurements of solid portion size.
Methods
Four hundred eleven subsolid nodules (SSNs) (120 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 291 IPAs) in 333 patients who underwent surgery between June 2010 and August 2016 were retrospectively included to develop the model (370 SSNs in 293 patients for training and 41 SSNs in 40 patients for tuning). Ninety SSNs of 2 cm or smaller (45 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 45 IPAs) resected in 2018 formed a validation set. Six radiologists measured the solid portion of each nodule. Performances of the model and radiologists were assessed using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis.
Results
The deep learning model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.914, 0.956, and 0.833 for the training, tuning, and validation sets, respectively. The mean AUC of the radiologists was 0.835 in the validation set, without significant differences between radiologists and the model (
p
= 0.97). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the model were 71% (32/45), 87% (39/45), and 79% (71/90), respectively, whereas the corresponding values of the radiologists were 75.2% (203/270), 76.7% (207/270), and 75.9% (410/540) with a 5-mm threshold for the solid portion size.
Conclusions
The performance of the model for differentiating IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA was comparable to that of the radiologists’ measurements of solid portion size.
Key Points
• A deep learning–based model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with AUCs of 0.914 and 0.956 for the training and tuning sets, respectively.
•
In the validation set including subsolid nodules of 2 cm or smaller, the model showed an AUC of 0.833, being on par with the performance of the solid portion size measurements made by the radiologists (AUC, 0.835; p = 0.97).
•
SSNs with a solid portion measuring > 10 mm on CT showed a high probability of being IPA (positive predictive value, 93.5–100.0%). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-020-07620-z |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2487430553</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2549837715</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-5413c82e7b5f5e2ee21088f14fc6d6250864aec141f7c50f3aa662d1b7d025b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kb1uFTEQhS0EIjeBF6BAlmjSLPHverdEAQJSpDTpLa89vnLktRf7bqSbildAvCFPEsMNiURBMZ7C3zljz0HoDSXvKSHqrBLCOekIa6X6dt49QxsqOOsoGcRztCEjHzo1juIIHdd6QwgZqVAv0RHnUspWG_TjI8CCI5iSQtr--v5zMhUcdsF7KJB2wexCTjh7HNKtqeEWsHGQsjXFhpRnU7EvecZLgUcgFzyHFGYT4_5JFqE2p4rNnNMWL2ts3ZQ9rutUcwwOp-zWBr1CL7yJFV4_9BN0_fnT9fmX7vLq4uv5h8vOciV3nRSU24GBmqSXwABY-_TgqfC2dz2TZOiFAUsF9cpK4rkxfc8cnZQjTE78BJ0ebJeSv61Qd3oO1UKMJkFeq2ZiUIKTtqaGvvsHvclrSe1xmkkxDlwpKhvFDpQtudYCXi-l7aDsNSX6d176kJdueek_eem7Jnr7YL1OM7hHyd-AGsAPQG1XaQvlafZ_bO8Bs-ulsg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2549837715</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Deep learning–based differentiation of invasive adenocarcinomas from preinvasive or minimally invasive lesions among pulmonary subsolid nodules</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Park, Sohee ; Park, Gwangbeen ; Lee, Sang Min ; Kim, Wooil ; Park, Hyunho ; Jung, Kyuhwan ; Seo, Joon Beom</creator><creatorcontrib>Park, Sohee ; Park, Gwangbeen ; Lee, Sang Min ; Kim, Wooil ; Park, Hyunho ; Jung, Kyuhwan ; Seo, Joon Beom</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To evaluate a deep learning–based model using model-generated segmentation masks to differentiate invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma (IPA) from preinvasive lesions or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) on CT, making comparisons with radiologist-derived measurements of solid portion size.
Methods
Four hundred eleven subsolid nodules (SSNs) (120 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 291 IPAs) in 333 patients who underwent surgery between June 2010 and August 2016 were retrospectively included to develop the model (370 SSNs in 293 patients for training and 41 SSNs in 40 patients for tuning). Ninety SSNs of 2 cm or smaller (45 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 45 IPAs) resected in 2018 formed a validation set. Six radiologists measured the solid portion of each nodule. Performances of the model and radiologists were assessed using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis.
Results
The deep learning model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.914, 0.956, and 0.833 for the training, tuning, and validation sets, respectively. The mean AUC of the radiologists was 0.835 in the validation set, without significant differences between radiologists and the model (
p
= 0.97). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the model were 71% (32/45), 87% (39/45), and 79% (71/90), respectively, whereas the corresponding values of the radiologists were 75.2% (203/270), 76.7% (207/270), and 75.9% (410/540) with a 5-mm threshold for the solid portion size.
Conclusions
The performance of the model for differentiating IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA was comparable to that of the radiologists’ measurements of solid portion size.
Key Points
• A deep learning–based model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with AUCs of 0.914 and 0.956 for the training and tuning sets, respectively.
•
In the validation set including subsolid nodules of 2 cm or smaller, the model showed an AUC of 0.833, being on par with the performance of the solid portion size measurements made by the radiologists (AUC, 0.835; p = 0.97).
•
SSNs with a solid portion measuring > 10 mm on CT showed a high probability of being IPA (positive predictive value, 93.5–100.0%).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07620-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33555355</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adenocarcinoma ; Chest ; Deep learning ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Lesions ; Lung cancer ; Lung nodules ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Model accuracy ; Neuroradiology ; Nodules ; Patients ; Radiology ; Segmentation ; Surgery ; Training ; Tuning ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2021-08, Vol.31 (8), p.6239-6247</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2021</rights><rights>European Society of Radiology 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-5413c82e7b5f5e2ee21088f14fc6d6250864aec141f7c50f3aa662d1b7d025b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-5413c82e7b5f5e2ee21088f14fc6d6250864aec141f7c50f3aa662d1b7d025b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7627-2000</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-020-07620-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-020-07620-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33555355$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Park, Sohee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Gwangbeen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Sang Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Wooil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Hyunho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Kyuhwan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seo, Joon Beom</creatorcontrib><title>Deep learning–based differentiation of invasive adenocarcinomas from preinvasive or minimally invasive lesions among pulmonary subsolid nodules</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives
To evaluate a deep learning–based model using model-generated segmentation masks to differentiate invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma (IPA) from preinvasive lesions or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) on CT, making comparisons with radiologist-derived measurements of solid portion size.
Methods
Four hundred eleven subsolid nodules (SSNs) (120 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 291 IPAs) in 333 patients who underwent surgery between June 2010 and August 2016 were retrospectively included to develop the model (370 SSNs in 293 patients for training and 41 SSNs in 40 patients for tuning). Ninety SSNs of 2 cm or smaller (45 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 45 IPAs) resected in 2018 formed a validation set. Six radiologists measured the solid portion of each nodule. Performances of the model and radiologists were assessed using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis.
Results
The deep learning model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.914, 0.956, and 0.833 for the training, tuning, and validation sets, respectively. The mean AUC of the radiologists was 0.835 in the validation set, without significant differences between radiologists and the model (
p
= 0.97). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the model were 71% (32/45), 87% (39/45), and 79% (71/90), respectively, whereas the corresponding values of the radiologists were 75.2% (203/270), 76.7% (207/270), and 75.9% (410/540) with a 5-mm threshold for the solid portion size.
Conclusions
The performance of the model for differentiating IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA was comparable to that of the radiologists’ measurements of solid portion size.
Key Points
• A deep learning–based model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with AUCs of 0.914 and 0.956 for the training and tuning sets, respectively.
•
In the validation set including subsolid nodules of 2 cm or smaller, the model showed an AUC of 0.833, being on par with the performance of the solid portion size measurements made by the radiologists (AUC, 0.835; p = 0.97).
•
SSNs with a solid portion measuring > 10 mm on CT showed a high probability of being IPA (positive predictive value, 93.5–100.0%).</description><subject>Adenocarcinoma</subject><subject>Chest</subject><subject>Deep learning</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Lung nodules</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Model accuracy</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Nodules</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Segmentation</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Tuning</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kb1uFTEQhS0EIjeBF6BAlmjSLPHverdEAQJSpDTpLa89vnLktRf7bqSbildAvCFPEsMNiURBMZ7C3zljz0HoDSXvKSHqrBLCOekIa6X6dt49QxsqOOsoGcRztCEjHzo1juIIHdd6QwgZqVAv0RHnUspWG_TjI8CCI5iSQtr--v5zMhUcdsF7KJB2wexCTjh7HNKtqeEWsHGQsjXFhpRnU7EvecZLgUcgFzyHFGYT4_5JFqE2p4rNnNMWL2ts3ZQ9rutUcwwOp-zWBr1CL7yJFV4_9BN0_fnT9fmX7vLq4uv5h8vOciV3nRSU24GBmqSXwABY-_TgqfC2dz2TZOiFAUsF9cpK4rkxfc8cnZQjTE78BJ0ebJeSv61Qd3oO1UKMJkFeq2ZiUIKTtqaGvvsHvclrSe1xmkkxDlwpKhvFDpQtudYCXi-l7aDsNSX6d176kJdueek_eem7Jnr7YL1OM7hHyd-AGsAPQG1XaQvlafZ_bO8Bs-ulsg</recordid><startdate>20210801</startdate><enddate>20210801</enddate><creator>Park, Sohee</creator><creator>Park, Gwangbeen</creator><creator>Lee, Sang Min</creator><creator>Kim, Wooil</creator><creator>Park, Hyunho</creator><creator>Jung, Kyuhwan</creator><creator>Seo, Joon Beom</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7627-2000</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210801</creationdate><title>Deep learning–based differentiation of invasive adenocarcinomas from preinvasive or minimally invasive lesions among pulmonary subsolid nodules</title><author>Park, Sohee ; Park, Gwangbeen ; Lee, Sang Min ; Kim, Wooil ; Park, Hyunho ; Jung, Kyuhwan ; Seo, Joon Beom</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-5413c82e7b5f5e2ee21088f14fc6d6250864aec141f7c50f3aa662d1b7d025b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adenocarcinoma</topic><topic>Chest</topic><topic>Deep learning</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Lung nodules</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Model accuracy</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Nodules</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Segmentation</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Tuning</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Park, Sohee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Gwangbeen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Sang Min</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Wooil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Park, Hyunho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Kyuhwan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seo, Joon Beom</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Park, Sohee</au><au>Park, Gwangbeen</au><au>Lee, Sang Min</au><au>Kim, Wooil</au><au>Park, Hyunho</au><au>Jung, Kyuhwan</au><au>Seo, Joon Beom</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Deep learning–based differentiation of invasive adenocarcinomas from preinvasive or minimally invasive lesions among pulmonary subsolid nodules</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2021-08-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>6239</spage><epage>6247</epage><pages>6239-6247</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To evaluate a deep learning–based model using model-generated segmentation masks to differentiate invasive pulmonary adenocarcinoma (IPA) from preinvasive lesions or minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) on CT, making comparisons with radiologist-derived measurements of solid portion size.
Methods
Four hundred eleven subsolid nodules (SSNs) (120 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 291 IPAs) in 333 patients who underwent surgery between June 2010 and August 2016 were retrospectively included to develop the model (370 SSNs in 293 patients for training and 41 SSNs in 40 patients for tuning). Ninety SSNs of 2 cm or smaller (45 preinvasive lesions or MIAs and 45 IPAs) resected in 2018 formed a validation set. Six radiologists measured the solid portion of each nodule. Performances of the model and radiologists were assessed using receiver operating characteristics curve analysis.
Results
The deep learning model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.914, 0.956, and 0.833 for the training, tuning, and validation sets, respectively. The mean AUC of the radiologists was 0.835 in the validation set, without significant differences between radiologists and the model (
p
= 0.97). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the model were 71% (32/45), 87% (39/45), and 79% (71/90), respectively, whereas the corresponding values of the radiologists were 75.2% (203/270), 76.7% (207/270), and 75.9% (410/540) with a 5-mm threshold for the solid portion size.
Conclusions
The performance of the model for differentiating IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA was comparable to that of the radiologists’ measurements of solid portion size.
Key Points
• A deep learning–based model differentiated IPA from preinvasive lesions or MIA with AUCs of 0.914 and 0.956 for the training and tuning sets, respectively.
•
In the validation set including subsolid nodules of 2 cm or smaller, the model showed an AUC of 0.833, being on par with the performance of the solid portion size measurements made by the radiologists (AUC, 0.835; p = 0.97).
•
SSNs with a solid portion measuring > 10 mm on CT showed a high probability of being IPA (positive predictive value, 93.5–100.0%).</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>33555355</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-020-07620-z</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7627-2000</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
ispartof | European radiology, 2021-08, Vol.31 (8), p.6239-6247 |
issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2487430553 |
source | SpringerNature Journals |
subjects | Adenocarcinoma Chest Deep learning Diagnostic Radiology Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Lesions Lung cancer Lung nodules Medicine Medicine & Public Health Model accuracy Neuroradiology Nodules Patients Radiology Segmentation Surgery Training Tuning Ultrasound |
title | Deep learning–based differentiation of invasive adenocarcinomas from preinvasive or minimally invasive lesions among pulmonary subsolid nodules |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T21%3A48%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Deep%20learning%E2%80%93based%20differentiation%20of%20invasive%20adenocarcinomas%20from%20preinvasive%20or%20minimally%20invasive%20lesions%20among%20pulmonary%20subsolid%20nodules&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Park,%20Sohee&rft.date=2021-08-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=6239&rft.epage=6247&rft.pages=6239-6247&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-020-07620-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2549837715%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2549837715&rft_id=info:pmid/33555355&rfr_iscdi=true |