Refining Focus in AI for Lung Cancer: Comparing Lesion-Centric and Chest-Region Models with Performance Insights from Internal and External Validation

Background: AI-based classification models are essential for improving lung cancer diagnosis. However, the relative performance of lesion-level versus chest-region models in internal and external datasets remains unclear. Purpose: This study evaluates the performance of lesion-level and chest-region models for lung cancer classification, comparing their effectiveness across internal Duke Lung Nodule Dataset 2024 (DLND24) and external (LUNA16, NLST) datasets, with a focus on subgroup analyses by demographics, histology, and imaging characteristics. Materials and Methods: Two AI models were trained: one using lesion-centric patches (64,64,64) and the other using chest-region patches (512,512,8). Internal validation was conducted on DLND24, while external validation utilized LUNA16 and NLST datasets. The models performances were assessed using AUC-ROC, with subgroup analyses for demographic, clinical, and imaging factors. Statistical comparisons were performed using DeLongs test. Gradient-based visualizations and probability distribution were further used for analysis. Results: The lesion-level model consistently outperformed the chest-region model across datasets. In internal validation, the lesion-level model achieved an AUC of 0.71(CI: 0.61-0.81), compared to 0.68(0.57-0.77) for the chest-region model. External validation showed similar trends, with AUCs of 0.90(0.87-0.92) and 0.81(0.79-0.82) on LUNA16 and NLST, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed significant advantages for lesion-level models in certain histological subtypes (adenocarcinoma) and imaging conditions (CT manufacturers). Conclusion: Lesion-level models demonstrate superior classification performance, especially for external datasets and challenging subgroups, suggesting their clinical utility for precision lung cancer diagnostics.

Peritumoral Expansion Radiomics for Improved Lung Cancer Classification

Purpose: This study investigated how nodule segmentation and surrounding peritumoral regions influence radionics-based lung cancer classification. Methods: Using 3D CT scans with bounding box annotated nodules, we generated 3D segmentations using four techniques: Otsu, Fuzzy C-Means (FCM), Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN). Radiomics features were extracted using the PyRadiomics library, and multiple machine-learning-based classifiers, including Random Forest, Logistic Regression, and KNN, were employed to classify nodules as cancerous or non-cancerous. The best-performing segmentation and model were further analyzed by expanding the initial nodule segmentation into the peritumoral region (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm) to understand the influence of the surrounding area on classification. Additionally, we compared our results to deep learning-based feature extractors Foundation Model for Cancer Biomarkers (FMCB) and other state-of-the-art baseline models. Results: Incorporating peritumoral regions significantly enhanced performance, with the best result obtained at 8 mm expansion (AUC = 0.78). Compared to image-based deep learning models, such as FMCB (AUC = 0.71) and ResNet50-SWS++ (AUC = 0.71), our radiomics-based approach demonstrated superior classification accuracy. Conclusion: The study highlights the importance of peritumoral expansion in improving lung cancer classification using radiomics. These findings can inform the development of more robust AI-driven diagnostic tools.

XCAT-2.0: A Comprehensive Library of Personalized Digital Twins Derived from CT Scans

Virtual Imaging Trials (VIT) offer a cost-effective and scalable approach for evaluating medical imaging technologies. Computational phantoms, which mimic real patient anatomy and physiology, play a central role in VIT. However, the current libraries of computational phantoms face limitations, particularly in terms of sample size and diversity. Insufficient representation of the population hampers accurate assessment of imaging technologies across different patient groups. Traditionally, phantoms were created by manual segmentation, which is a laborious and time-consuming task, impeding the expansion of phantom libraries. This study presents a framework for realistic computational phantom modeling using a suite of four deep learning segmentation models, followed by three forms of automated organ segmentation quality control. Over 2500 computational phantoms with up to 140 structures illustrating a sophisticated approach to detailed anatomical modeling are released. Phantoms are available in both voxelized and surface mesh formats. The framework is aggregated with an in-house CT scanner simulator to produce realistic CT images. The framework can potentially advance virtual imaging trials, facilitating comprehensive and reliable evaluations of medical imaging technologies. Phantoms may be requested at https://cvit.duke.edu/resources/, code, model weights, and sample CT images are available at https://xcat-2.github.io.

AI in Lung Health: Benchmarking Detection and Diagnostic Models Across Multiple CT Scan Datasets

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer's high mortality rate can be mitigated by early detection, which is increasingly reliant on artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnostic imaging. However, the performance of AI models is contingent upon the datasets used for their training and validation. METHODS: This study developed and validated the DLCSD-mD and LUNA16-mD models utilizing the Duke Lung Cancer Screening Dataset (DLCSD), encompassing over 2,000 CT scans with more than 3,000 annotations. These models were rigorously evaluated against the internal DLCSD and external LUNA16 and NLST datasets, aiming to establish a benchmark for imaging-based performance. The assessment focused on creating a standardized evaluation framework to facilitate consistent comparison with widely utilized datasets, ensuring a comprehensive validation of the model's efficacy. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) and area under the curve (AUC) analyses. RESULTS: On the internal DLCSD set, the DLCSD-mD model achieved an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI:0.91-0.94), demonstrating high accuracy. Its performance was sustained on the external datasets, with AUCs of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98) on LUNA16 and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.73-0.76) on NLST. Similarly, the LUNA16-mD model recorded an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97) on its native dataset and showed transferable diagnostic performance with AUCs of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.93) on DLCSD and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.70-0.72) on NLST. CONCLUSION: The DLCSD-mD model exhibits reliable performance across different datasets, establishing the DLCSD as a robust benchmark for lung cancer detection and diagnosis. Through the provision of our models and code to the public domain, we aim to accelerate the development of AI-based diagnostic tools and encourage reproducibility and collaborative advancements within the medical machine-learning (ML) field.

VLST: Virtual Lung Screening Trial for Lung Cancer Detection Using Virtual Imaging Trial

Importance: The efficacy of lung cancer screening can be significantly impacted by the imaging modality used. This Virtual Lung Screening Trial (VLST) addresses the critical need for precision in lung cancer diagnostics and the potential for reducing unnecessary radiation exposure in clinical settings. Objectives: To establish a virtual imaging trial (VIT) platform that accurately simulates real-world lung screening trials (LSTs) to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT and CXR modalities. Design, Setting, and Participants: Utilizing computational models and machine learning algorithms, we created a diverse virtual patient population. The cohort, designed to mirror real-world demographics, was assessed using virtual imaging techniques that reflect historical imaging technologies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference in the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for CT and CXR modalities across lesion types and sizes. Results: The study analyzed 298 CT and 313 CXR simulated images from 313 virtual patients, with a lesion-level AUC of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84) for CT and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.53-0.56) for CXR. At the patient level, CT demonstrated an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.89), compared to 0.53 (95% CI: 0.47-0.60) for CXR. Subgroup analyses indicated CT's superior performance in detecting homogeneous lesions (AUC of 0.97 for lesion-level) and heterogeneous lesions (AUC of 0.71 for lesion-level) as well as in identifying larger nodules (AUC of 0.98 for nodules > 8 mm). Conclusion and Relevance: The VIT platform validated the superior diagnostic accuracy of CT over CXR, especially for smaller nodules, underscoring its potential to replicate real clinical imaging trials. These findings advocate for the integration of virtual trials in the evaluation and improvement of imaging-based diagnostic tools.

What limits performance of weakly supervised deep learning for chest CT classification?

Weakly supervised learning with noisy data has drawn attention in the medical imaging community due to the sparsity of high-quality disease labels. However, little is known about the limitations of such weakly supervised learning and the effect of these constraints on disease classification performance. In this paper, we test the effects of such weak supervision by examining model tolerance for three conditions. First, we examined model tolerance for noisy data by incrementally increasing error in the labels within the training data. Second, we assessed the impact of dataset size by varying the amount of training data. Third, we compared performance differences between binary and multi-label classification. Results demonstrated that the model could endure up to 10% added label error before experiencing a decline in disease classification performance. Disease classification performance steadily rose as the amount of training data was increased for all disease classes, before experiencing a plateau in performance at 75% of training data. Last, the binary model outperformed the multilabel model in every disease category. However, such interpretations may be misleading, as the binary model was heavily influenced by co-occurring diseases and may not have learned the specific features of the disease in the image. In conclusion, this study may help the medical imaging community understand the benefits and risks of weak supervision with noisy labels. Such studies demonstrate the need to build diverse, large-scale datasets and to develop explainable and responsible AI.

Data diversity and virtual imaging in AI-based diagnosis: A case study based on COVID-19

Many studies have investigated deep-learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) models for medical imaging diagnosis of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), with many reports of near-perfect performance. However, variability in performance and underlying data biases raise concerns about clinical generalizability. This retrospective study involved the development and evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) models for COVID-19 diagnosis using both diverse clinical and virtually generated medical images. In addition, we conducted a virtual imaging trial to assess how AI performance is affected by several patient- and physics-based factors, including the extent of disease, radiation dose, and imaging modality of computed tomography (CT) and chest radiography (CXR). AI performance was strongly influenced by dataset characteristics including quantity, diversity, and prevalence, leading to poor generalization with up to 20% drop in receiver operating characteristic area under the curve. Model performance on virtual CT and CXR images was comparable to overall results on clinical data. Imaging dose proved to have negligible influence on the results, but the extent of the disease had a marked affect. CT results were consistently superior to those from CXR. Overall, the study highlighted the significant impact of dataset characteristics and disease extent on COVID assessment, and the relevance and potential role of virtual imaging trial techniques on developing effective evaluation of AI algorithms and facilitating translation into diagnostic practice.

Virtual vs. Reality: External Validation of COVID-19 Classifiers using XCAT Phantoms for Chest Computed Tomography

Research studies of artificial intelligence models in medical imaging have been hampered by poor generalization. This problem has been especially concerning over the last year with numerous applications of deep learning for COVID-19 diagnosis. Virtual imaging trials (VITs) could provide a solution for objective evaluation of these models. In this work utilizing the VITs, we created the CVIT-COVID dataset including 180 virtually imaged computed tomography (CT) images from simulated COVID-19 and normal phantom models under different COVID-19 morphology and imaging properties. We evaluated the performance of an open-source, deep-learning model from the University of Waterloo trained with multi-institutional data and an in-house model trained with the open clinical dataset called MosMed. We further validated the model's performance against open clinical data of 305 CT images to understand virtual vs. real clinical data performance. The open-source model was published with nearly perfect performance on the original Waterloo dataset but showed a consistent performance drop in external testing on another clinical dataset (AUC=0.77) and our simulated CVIT-COVID dataset (AUC=0.55). The in-house model achieved an AUC of 0.87 while testing on the internal test set (MosMed test set). However, performance dropped to an AUC of 0.65 and 0.69 when evaluated on clinical and our simulated CVIT-COVID dataset. The VIT framework offered control over imaging conditions, allowing us to show there was no change in performance as CT exposure was changed from 28.5 to 57 mAs. The VIT framework also provided voxel-level ground truth, revealing that performance of in-house model was much higher at AUC=0.87 for diffuse COVID-19 infection size >2.65% lung volume versus AUC=0.52 for focal disease with <2.65% volume. The virtual imaging framework enabled these uniquely rigorous analyses of model performance.

Quality or Quantity: Toward a Unified Approach for Multi-organ Segmentation in Body CT

Organ segmentation of medical images is a key step in virtual imaging trials. However, organ segmentation datasets are limited in terms of quality (because labels cover only a few organs) and quantity (since case numbers are limited). In this study, we explored the tradeoffs between quality and quantity. Our goal is to create a unified approach for multi-organ segmentation of body CT, which will facilitate the creation of large numbers of accurate virtual phantoms. Initially, we compared two segmentation architectures, 3D-Unet and DenseVNet, which were trained using XCAT data that is fully labeled with 22 organs, and chose the 3D-Unet as the better performing model. We used the XCAT-trained model to generate pseudo-labels for the CT-ORG dataset that has only 7 organs segmented. We performed two experiments: First, we trained 3D-UNet model on the XCAT dataset, representing quality data, and tested it on both XCAT and CT-ORG datasets. Second, we trained 3D-UNet after including the CT-ORG dataset into the training set to have more quantity. Performance improved for segmentation in the organs where we have true labels in both datasets and degraded when relying on pseudo-labels. When organs were labeled in both datasets, Exp-2 improved Average DSC in XCAT and CT-ORG by 1. This demonstrates that quality data is the key to improving the model's performance.

Co-occurring Diseases Heavily Influence the Performance of Weakly Supervised Learning Models for Classification of Chest CT

Despite the potential of weakly supervised learning to automatically annotate massive amounts of data, little is known about its limitations for use in computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). For CT specifically, interpreting the performance of CAD algorithms can be challenging given the large number of co-occurring diseases. This paper examines the effect of co-occurring diseases when training classification models by weakly supervised learning, specifically by comparing multi-label and multiple binary classifiers using the same training data. Our results demonstrated that the binary model outperformed the multi-label classification in every disease category in terms of AUC. However, this performance was heavily influenced by co-occurring diseases in the binary model, suggesting it did not always learn the correct appearance of the specific disease. For example, binary classification of lung nodules resulted in an AUC of < 0.65 when there were no other co-occurring diseases, but when lung nodules co-occurred with emphysema, the performance reached AUC > 0.80. We hope this paper revealed the complexity of interpreting disease classification performance in weakly supervised models and will encourage researchers to examine the effect of co-occurring diseases on classification performance in the future.