Evaluation of an artificial intelligence generated Brock score to determine malignancy risk of screen-detected pulmonary nodules

IF 3.5 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Journal of Radiology Open Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-27 DOI:10.1016/j.ejro.2026.100765
Kathryn J. Long , Michael Balassone , Saigopal Sathyamurthy , Vikash Challa , Deepak Adarsh , Gerard A. Silvestri
{"title":"Evaluation of an artificial intelligence generated Brock score to determine malignancy risk of screen-detected pulmonary nodules","authors":"Kathryn J. Long ,&nbsp;Michael Balassone ,&nbsp;Saigopal Sathyamurthy ,&nbsp;Vikash Challa ,&nbsp;Deepak Adarsh ,&nbsp;Gerard A. Silvestri","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2026.100765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Estimation of malignancy risk is a crucial step in the evaluation of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPN) on computed tomography (CT) scans. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools can improve the risk prediction of IPN. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of an AI generated Brock score with standard Brock score to estimate malignancy risk.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The AI tool qCT (Qure.ai Technologies, Mumbai, India) was tested on a case-control series of patients with screen-detected nodules from the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST). Standard Brock score and AI Brock score were calculated for each nodule using clinical data from the NLST dataset and nodule characteristics derived from the dataset and AI interpretation of CT images, respectively. Performance of each model was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). The sensitivity and specificity of each model was calculated at fixed thresholds of ≥ 2, 5, and 10% cancer risk.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 478 patients (239 cases, 239 controls) were included. The AUC of the AI Brock score and standard Brock score were 0.72 (95% CI 0.67–0.76) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.81), respectively (p = 0.053). At a 5% threshold, the sensitivity and specificity were 69% and 65% for AI and 57% and 82% for the standard.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The accuracy of the AI tool was lower than the standard Brock score, though not reaching statistical significance. Across all risk thresholds, the AI tool had higher sensitivity, but lower specificity than the standard Brock score, suggesting use might complement clinician assessments of nodule risk.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100765"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047726000420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Estimation of malignancy risk is a crucial step in the evaluation of indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPN) on computed tomography (CT) scans. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools can improve the risk prediction of IPN. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of an AI generated Brock score with standard Brock score to estimate malignancy risk.

Methods

The AI tool qCT (Qure.ai Technologies, Mumbai, India) was tested on a case-control series of patients with screen-detected nodules from the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST). Standard Brock score and AI Brock score were calculated for each nodule using clinical data from the NLST dataset and nodule characteristics derived from the dataset and AI interpretation of CT images, respectively. Performance of each model was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). The sensitivity and specificity of each model was calculated at fixed thresholds of ≥ 2, 5, and 10% cancer risk.

Results

A total of 478 patients (239 cases, 239 controls) were included. The AUC of the AI Brock score and standard Brock score were 0.72 (95% CI 0.67–0.76) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.81), respectively (p = 0.053). At a 5% threshold, the sensitivity and specificity were 69% and 65% for AI and 57% and 82% for the standard.

Conclusion

The accuracy of the AI tool was lower than the standard Brock score, though not reaching statistical significance. Across all risk thresholds, the AI tool had higher sensitivity, but lower specificity than the standard Brock score, suggesting use might complement clinician assessments of nodule risk.
评估人工智能生成的Brock评分以确定筛查到的肺结节的恶性风险
背景:在计算机断层扫描(CT)上评估不确定肺结节(IPN)时,恶性肿瘤风险的确定是至关重要的一步。人工智能(AI)工具可以提高IPN的风险预测。本研究的目的是比较人工智能生成的Brock评分与标准Brock评分的表现,以估计恶性肿瘤的风险。方法人工智能工具qCT (qCT);ai Technologies,孟买,印度)在国家肺癌筛查试验(NLST)中筛查出结节的病例对照系列患者中进行了测试。根据NLST数据集的临床数据、数据集导出的结节特征以及CT图像的AI解释,分别计算每个结节的标准Brock评分和AI Brock评分。使用受试者工作曲线下面积(AUC)评估每个模型的性能。每个模型的敏感性和特异性在≥ 2、5和10%癌症风险的固定阈值下计算。结果共纳入478例患者(239例,对照组239例)。AI Brock评分和标准Brock评分的AUC分别为0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.76)和0.76 (95% CI 0.72 - 0.81) (p = 0.053)。在5%的阈值下,AI的敏感性和特异性分别为69%和65%,而标准的敏感性和特异性分别为57%和82%。结论人工智能工具的准确性低于标准Brock评分,但未达到统计学意义。在所有风险阈值中,人工智能工具的敏感性更高,但特异性低于标准Brock评分,这表明使用人工智能工具可以补充临床医生对结节风险的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书