Eduardo J Mortani Barbosa, Yohan Kim, Justin Shanahan, Alex Rupsee
{"title":"The value of machine learning inference to predict multidisciplinary discussion diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases.","authors":"Eduardo J Mortani Barbosa, Yohan Kim, Justin Shanahan, Alex Rupsee","doi":"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2026.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Multidisciplinary discussion (MDD) is the reference standard for diagnosing interstitial lung diseases (ILD), however, it requires considerable expertise, and up to 25% of patients remain unclassifiable. We evaluated whether machine learning (ML) models trained on multimodal data can accurately replicate MDD consensus ILD diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>We retrospectively identified 428 patients with ILD confirmed by MDD consensus at a tertiary academic center from 2010 to 2021. Using comprehensive clinical and radiological data, we trained and cross-validated multiple ML models for three classifications: (1) three-level: connective tissue disease associated ILD (CTD-ILD), usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), or unclassifiable; (2) UIP/IPF versus all other, and (3) unclassifiable versus all other. Logistic regression, random forest, and neural networks ML models were trained with five-fold cross-validation. Performance was compared via area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MDD diagnoses were UIP/IPF in 131 patients (30.6%), CTD-ILD in 130 (30.4%), and unclassifiable ILD in 167 (39.0%). Clinical variables and CT imaging features were more predictive than PFTs. ML models achieved AUC values ranging from 0.66 to 0.92. For UIP/IPF vs. other, the neural network reached an AUC of 0.88. Notably, the Lasso regression model exhibited high specificity (0.966), suggesting utility as a high-confidence \"rule-in\" AI tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ML classification closely approximated MDD diagnoses of ILD, especially for UIP/IPF, relying primarily on clinical and CT imaging features, even without pathology information, allowing expert-level diagnostic performance where MDD resources are not available.</p>","PeriodicalId":93969,"journal":{"name":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2026.09.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Multidisciplinary discussion (MDD) is the reference standard for diagnosing interstitial lung diseases (ILD), however, it requires considerable expertise, and up to 25% of patients remain unclassifiable. We evaluated whether machine learning (ML) models trained on multimodal data can accurately replicate MDD consensus ILD diagnoses.
Materials & methods: We retrospectively identified 428 patients with ILD confirmed by MDD consensus at a tertiary academic center from 2010 to 2021. Using comprehensive clinical and radiological data, we trained and cross-validated multiple ML models for three classifications: (1) three-level: connective tissue disease associated ILD (CTD-ILD), usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), or unclassifiable; (2) UIP/IPF versus all other, and (3) unclassifiable versus all other. Logistic regression, random forest, and neural networks ML models were trained with five-fold cross-validation. Performance was compared via area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals.
Results: MDD diagnoses were UIP/IPF in 131 patients (30.6%), CTD-ILD in 130 (30.4%), and unclassifiable ILD in 167 (39.0%). Clinical variables and CT imaging features were more predictive than PFTs. ML models achieved AUC values ranging from 0.66 to 0.92. For UIP/IPF vs. other, the neural network reached an AUC of 0.88. Notably, the Lasso regression model exhibited high specificity (0.966), suggesting utility as a high-confidence "rule-in" AI tool.
Conclusion: ML classification closely approximated MDD diagnoses of ILD, especially for UIP/IPF, relying primarily on clinical and CT imaging features, even without pathology information, allowing expert-level diagnostic performance where MDD resources are not available.