Multi-Attention Stacked Ensemble for Lung Cancer Detection in CT Scans

Surya Prakash; Uzzal Saha

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Multi-Attention Stacked Ensemble for Lung Cancer Detection in CT Scans

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a stacked ensemble with two learned attention layers—one weighting each model, one weighting each class—classifies benign versus malignant lung nodules in CT patches at 98.09% accuracy and 0.9961 AUC on LIDC-IDRI, a…

desk verdict A modest dual-attention ensemble whose reported results are undermined by per-patch evaluation on correlated slices and inconsistent error-reduction arithmetic. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20221 v1 pith:WILZZ5JB submitted 2025-07-27 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Uzzal Saha , Surya Prakash This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV

keywords lungnoduleclassificationcomputedtomographystackingensemblelearningattentionmechanismdynamicfocallossMixUptest-timeaugmentationLIDC-IDRI

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that a simple ensemble of pretrained networks can be turned into a stronger lung-cancer classifier by learning, for each input CT patch, how much to trust each model and each class prediction. The proposed Multi-Attention Stacked Ensemble (MASE) combines three pretrained networks—DenseNet-201, EfficientNetV2-S, and MobileViT-XXS—through two attention layers and a small meta-classifier, with dynamic focal loss, MixUp, and test-time augmentation to handle the heavy imbalance between benign and malignant nodules. On the LIDC-IDRI dataset the system reports 98.09% accuracy and 0.9961 AUC, a 35% error reduction over prior methods, with sensitivity and specificity both near 99%. If this holds, it would give radiologists a second reader that rarely misses a malignancy and rarely sends a benign case for unnecessary follow-up.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Multi-Attention Stacked Ensemble module. It takes the logits of the three adapted networks as a tensor $[B, M, C]$, flattens it, and routes it through two parallel attention MLPs: one that outputs per-sample softmax weights over models, used to form a weighted sum of logits, and one that outputs per-class weights, applied elementwise to that sum. The two weighted vectors are concatenated and passed to a compact meta-learner ($2C \to 128 \to C$) that produces the final logits. A shared 256-dimensional adapter head with LayerNorm and dropout places the three backbones in a common feature space before fusion; dynamic focal loss ($\gamma=2.0$, class weights about 0.33/1.67), MixUp, and test-time augmentation stabilize training and inference.

What would settle it

Re-run the evaluation with a strict nodule-level split: assign every 2D patch extracted from the same physical nodule to the same partition, then measure test accuracy; if the 31-error result degrades substantially, the original figure depended on slice-level or patch-level leakage rather than on learning which nodules are malignant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that input-dependent, class-dependent weighting is what makes ensembling work for nodule classification: instead of averaging logits uniformly or weighting whole models only, MASE learns a per-sample weight per model and a per-sample weight per class, then fuses them with a meta-learner. In the paper's experiments this produces 31 test errors on 1,622 samples (98.09% accuracy), outperforming every base model and every compared prior method, with statistically significant gains across 20 runs. The authors interpret this as evidence that different architectures specialize in different visual attributes of nodules—texture, shape, context—and that the dual attention layers learn to call on the right specialist per input.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the 8,106 2D CT patches cut from LIDC-IDRI nodules are independent, correctly labeled examples, with no patch from the same nodule appearing in both training and test splits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the LIDC-IDRI test set, MASE reduces total misclassifications to 31 out of 1,622 samples, a 35% error reduction relative to the best individual base model.
The gains are balanced: sensitivity is 98.73% and specificity is 98.96%, so the high accuracy does not come from simply calling most nodules benign.
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests across 20 runs report p<0.001 against every base model after Bonferroni correction, meaning the ensemble improvement is not a single-run accident.
The dual attention weights are per-input, so the ensemble can favor a different model or class for different nodules instead of using a fixed global weighting.
GradCAM++ visualizations show the three backbones emphasize different regions of the same nodule, which is the mechanism the paper argues the attention fusion exploits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the accuracy holds outside the paper's own split, the per-sample attention weights could double as a triage signal: cases where the three models and two attention streams disagree are exactly the ones a radiologist should re-read; the paper does not test this.
Because the fusion module never uses CT-specific features, the same dual-attention stack could be dropped into any three-network ensemble for other imbalanced medical imaging tasks; this transfer is our extrapolation, not a paper claim.
Nodule-level inference is left implicit: averaging test-time predictions across the several slices that show the same nodule could reduce the remaining 31 errors, since malignant nodules appear in multiple adjacent slices.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know about arXiv:2507.20221: the dual-attention ensemble (model-level and class-level attention over concatenated logits, fed to a small meta-learner) is a genuine but modest extension of existing attention-based ensembles like Zhang et al. The paper is not a throwaway: the authors report 20-run means and standard deviations, run Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni correction, and use standard components (focal loss, MixUp, TTA) sensibly. The writing is clear and the pipeline is reproducible in principle.

The soft spots are real and some are load-bearing. First, the headline 98.09% accuracy is the best of 20 runs; the mean is 97.53 ± 0.41. That is fine if disclosed, but the abstract and conclusion quote the best run without the mean. Second, and more serious, the evaluation is per-patch on LIDC-IDRI, and the paper never says how many 2D slices were extracted per nodule or whether slices from the same nodule can land in both training and test sets. With 8,106 patches from 1,018 scans, each nodule must contribute multiple slices, so test patches are correlated. The effective test size is the number of nodules, not 1,622 patches, and the Wilcoxon tests treat non-independent observations as independent. This makes the central SOTA claim unverified. A patient-level split mitigates patient leakage, but nodule-level correlation remains a serious confound.

Third, the arithmetic of the error reduction is off. From 97.23% (Gautam) to 98.09% gives a 31% error reduction, not 35%. From the base models, the reductions claimed in Section 6 (59.2% vs DenseNet, 35% vs best individual) also do not reproduce from the error counts in Table 2. Fourth, the statistical significance section reports mean accuracies for the base models (90.40%–95.31%) that are much lower than the single-run numbers in Table 2 (96.79%–97.16%), which is confusing and needs reconciliation. Fifth, the SOTA comparison in Table 3 is not controlled for split, patch extraction, or input modality.

None of these are fatal to the architectural idea. The dual-attention mechanism could be a useful contribution if evaluated properly with nodule-level aggregation and a controlled comparison. But as written, the empirical claims overstate what is established.

Who is this for? Someone working on ensemble methods for medical imaging might want the architecture as a pointer. This does not deserve a slot in a top journal as is; it needs a major revision to address the evaluation issues. I would tell the authors to redo the evaluation at the nodule level, report mean and error bars for all numbers, fix the arithmetic, and control the baseline comparison. If they do that, the paper could be a solid incremental contribution. For peer review: I'd send it out rather than desk reject—the flaws are addressable and the idea has some value—but the reviewers should insist on the fixes.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MASE, a multi-attention stacked ensemble of three pretrained backbones (DenseNet-201, EfficientNetV2-S, MobileViT-XXS) with model-level and class-level attention and a lightweight meta-learner, for binary benign/malignant lung nodule classification on 96x96 CT patches from LIDC-IDRI. Training combines dynamic focal loss, MixUp, class-weighted sampling, and test-time augmentation. The paper reports 98.09% accuracy, 0.9961 AUC, and a 35% error reduction over state-of-the-art, supported by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests over 20 runs.

Significance. The dual-attention ensemble is a reasonable engineering contribution that could be useful for aggregating heterogeneous CNN features in medical image classification, and the paper provides detailed training configurations. The main strength is the controlled comparison against the three base models, which shows clear gains. However, the headline claims are undermined by the use of best-of-run performance, the lack of nodule-level evaluation, and several arithmetic inconsistencies in the reported error reductions; the comparison to prior work is also not controlled. If these issues are corrected, the method may still be of interest, but the current empirical evidence does not support the stated state-of-the-art claims.

major comments (5)

[Sec. 6.1, Table 2] The headline accuracy of 98.09% is the best of 20 runs; the mean accuracy is 97.53% ± 0.41%. This best-run value is presented without qualification in the abstract, Section 6, and Table 3, which inflates the expected performance and makes the comparison to prior work misleading. Report the mean and confidence interval as the primary result, or clearly label 98.09% as the best run and justify why it is representative.
[Sec. 3] The manuscript does not describe how 2D patches are extracted from the LIDC-IDRI dataset: how many slices are taken per nodule, which slices are selected, how nodules with borderline malignancy scores (e.g., average exactly 3.0) are handled, and whether slices from the same nodule can appear in different splits. With 8,106 samples and far fewer nodules in 1,018 CT scans, multiple slices per nodule are almost certain. If slices from the same nodule appear in both training and test sets, the reported per-patch accuracy and AUC do not reflect independent nodule-level classification, and the effective test size is much smaller than 1,622. The Wilcoxon tests in Sec. 6.1 treat the 1,622 test patches as independent observations, which is not justified. Please provide a nodule-level analysis (e.g., majority-vote aggregation) and clarify the exact split criterion.
[Sec. 6, Table 3] The 35% error-reduction claim is arithmetically incorrect. From the best prior accuracy of 97.23% (Gautam et al.) to 98.09%, the error rate drops from 2.77% to 1.91%, a relative reduction of (2.77−1.91)/2.77 ≈ 31%, not 35%. The error reductions relative to the base models are also misattributed: according to Table 2, MASE reduces errors by 32.6% vs MobileViT-XXS (46 to 31), 40.4% vs DenseNet-201 (52 to 31), and 59.2% vs EfficientNetV2-S (76 to 31), not the stated '32.6% vs MobileViT, 59.2% vs DenseNet, 67.4% vs EfficientNet'. Correct these numbers and amend the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
[Table 3] The comparison with state-of-the-art methods is not controlled. The cited baselines use different data splits, patch extraction protocols, inclusion criteria, input modalities (2D vs. 3D), and evaluation units (per-patch vs. per-nodule). Without a common experimental protocol or re-implementation under identical conditions, the claim of superiority over prior work in the abstract and Section 6 is unsupported. Please restrict the claim to the authors' own controlled comparisons (the three base models and, ideally, a uniform/static-weight ensemble) or provide a proper controlled benchmark.
[Sec. 7 and Introduction] The introduction states that Section 7 will discuss findings and limitations, but Section 7 is a conclusion that does not address any limitation of the evaluation protocol. A limitations paragraph is needed, particularly covering the per-patch evaluation, the lack of nodule-level aggregation, the single-dataset evaluation, and the potential optimism from best-of-run reporting. This is a missing component that should be added in revision.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 3] The phrase 'patient-level stratified split' is unclear; please specify whether the split was performed per patient or per CT scan, and state the number of nodules and patients in each split.
[Sec. 4.1] There is a formatting error in the class-level attention description: 'RM ×C → 128, LayerNorm ReLU Dropout(0.3) RC' should be written with proper notation and spacing for readability.
[Sec. 6.1] The mean accuracies reported for the base models (e.g., 90.40% for DenseNet-201, 93.07% for EfficientNetV2-S) differ from the single-run values in Table 2; please state explicitly that Table 2 reports the best run or explain the discrepancy.
[Sec. 7] The phrase 'In this thesis' in Section 7 should be 'In this paper'.
[Table 1] The table caption contains a typo: 'T able 1' should be 'Table 1'.
[References] Reference [13] (Sagi & Rokach, 'Ensemble learning: A survey') is cited as having 'combined three distinct 2D CNNs on LIDC-IDRI patches,' but the reference is a general survey on ensemble learning and does not support that specific empirical claim. Please correct the citation or the sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported 98.09% accuracy, 0.9961 AUC, and error reductions are empirical measurements on a patient-level held-out test split, not quantities forced by the architecture's definitions or by a self-citation chain.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from preprocessing (Section 3), through the attention and fusion equations (Section 4, Figure 4), the loss and augmentation formulas (Equations 5-7), to the test metrics (Section 6). Nothing in the model is defined in terms of the test labels or the reported accuracy: class weights (Equation 4) are computed from training class frequencies and used only during training; attention weights and the meta-learner are learned on training and validation data and then applied to held-out patients; TTA (Equation 7) averages predictions only after training. The reference list contains no self-citations by the present authors, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Two textual concerns are correctness or reproducibility issues, not circularity: Section 3 never specifies how many 2D patches are extracted per nodule, so per-patch metrics may not equal per-nodule performance, and the '35% reduction' in Section 6 does not match the Table 3 arithmetic (2.77% to 1.91% is a 31% reduction). These issues do not make any reported quantity equal to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several domain assumptions about label construction and preprocessing. Free parameters are limited to a few hyperparameters; no new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Focal loss gamma = 2.0
Chosen by hand as 'optimal' via systematic evaluation (Section 4.1); affects training emphasis on hard examples and final performance.
MixUp alpha = 0.4
Set to 0.4 for the Beta distribution in MixUp; tuned on validation, affects interpolation strength.
Dropout rates = 0.5 and 0.3
Set in the model adapter and attention MLPs; chosen manually, not rigorously tuned, affect regularization.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Binarization threshold of 3 for averaged radiologist malignancy scores distinguishes benign from malignant nodules.
Section 3: 'Nodules were binarized by averaging the radiologists malignancy scores ranging from 1 to 5 and thresholding at 3.' This binary label may not align with clinical consensus.
domain assumption ImageNet statistics are appropriate for normalizing CT intensities.
Section 3: 'we normalized the CT scan intensities using the standard ImageNet statistics.' CT values are not natural images; this may distort signal.
domain assumption The 96x96 pixel patches preserve diagnostically relevant texture after bilinear resizing.
Section 3: 'All patches were resized to 96 x 96 pixels using bilinear interpolation.' Nodules can be small; resizing may lose information.
domain assumption The patient-level split ensures no patient appears in more than one partition.
The paper states a patient-level stratified split but does not detail how patients with multiple nodules or slices are handled.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Attention Stacked Ensemble for Lung Cancer Detection in CT Scans." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WILZZ5JB

@misc{pith2026250720221,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Attention Stacked Ensemble for Lung Cancer Detection in CT Scans},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WILZZ5JB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20221}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we address the challenge of binary lung nodule classification (benign vs malignant) using CT images by proposing a multi-level attention stacked ensemble of deep neural networks. Three pretrained backbones -- EfficientNet V2 S, MobileViT XXS, and DenseNet201 -- are each adapted with a custom classification head tailored to 96 x 96 pixel inputs. A two-stage attention mechanism learns both model-wise and class-wise importance scores from concatenated logits, and a lightweight meta-learner refines the final prediction. To mitigate class imbalance and improve generalization, we employ dynamic focal loss with empirically calculated class weights, MixUp augmentation during training, and test-time augmentation at inference. Experiments on the LIDC-IDRI dataset demonstrate exceptional performance, achieving 98.09 accuracy and 0.9961 AUC, representing a 35 percent reduction in error rate compared to state-of-the-art methods. The model exhibits balanced performance across sensitivity (98.73) and specificity (98.96), with particularly strong results on challenging cases where radiologist disagreement was high. Statistical significance testing confirms the robustness of these improvements across multiple experimental runs. Our approach can serve as a robust, automated aid for radiologists in lung cancer screening.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 73(1), 17–48 (2023)

Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Wagle, N.S., Jemal, A.: Cancer statistics, 2023. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 73(1), 17–48 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

Medical Physics 38(2), 915–931 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3528204

Armato, S.G., McLennan, G., Bidaut, L., al.: The lung image database consor- tium (lidc) and image database resource initiative (idri): a completed reference database of lung nodules on ct scans. Medical Physics 38(2), 915–931 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3528204

doi:10.1118/1.3528204 2011
[3]

International journal of biomedical imaging 2013(1), 942353 (2013) 22

El-Baz, A., Beache, G.M., Gimel farb, G., Suzuki, K., Okada, K., Elnakib, A., Soliman, A., Abdollahi, B.: Computer-aided diagnosis systems for lung can- cer: challenges and methodologies. International journal of biomedical imaging 2013(1), 942353 (2013) 22

work page 2013
[4]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 32(12), 2489–2499 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2013.2275072

Kostis, W.J., Reeves, A.P., Yankelevitz, D.F., Henschke, C.I.: Relationships between nodule location, density, and observer detection performance on low- dose ct images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 32(12), 2489–2499 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2013.2275072

work page arXiv 2013
[5]

Computerized Med- ical Imaging and Graphics 36(4), 227–239 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

Way, T., Fritscher, K., Mller, H., Noblesse, P.: Texture analysis of pulmonary nodules on ct for categorization using machine learning. Computerized Med- ical Imaging and Graphics 36(4), 227–239 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compmedimag.2011.12.009

doi:10.1016/j 2012
[6]

Medical Physics37(1), 570–579 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259774

Zhao, B., Kligerman, S., Du, H., GalperinAizenberg, M., Zhang, P., Schwartz, L.H.: Lung nodule classification on ct images using waveletbased multiscale tex- ture analysis and support vector machines. Medical Physics37(1), 570–579 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259774

work page doi:10.1118/1.3259774 2010
[7]

Medical Image Analysis 13(5), 757–770 (2009) https://doi.org/10

Murphy, K., Ginneken, B., Reinhardt, J.M., Kabus, S., Ding, K., Du, H., Tem- pany, C.M., Summers, R.M.: A largescale evaluation of automatic pulmonary nodule detection in chest ct using local image features and knearestneighbor classification. Medical Image Analysis 13(5), 757–770 (2009) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.media.2009.05.004

work page 2009
[8]

Expert Systems with Applications 69, 176–188 (2017)

Froz, B.R., Carvalho Filho, A.O., Silva, A.C., Paiva, A.C., Nunes, R.A., Gattass, M.: Lung nodule classification using artificial crawlers, directional texture and support vector machine. Expert Systems with Applications 69, 176–188 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 44 references

[9]

In: Information Processing in Medical Imaging IPMI 2015

Shen, W., Zhou, M., Yang, F., Yang, C., Tian, J.: Multiscale convolutional neural networks for lung nodule classification. In: Information Processing in Medical Imaging IPMI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9123, pp. 588–599. Springer, ??? (2015). https://doi.org/...

2015 doi
[10]

Journal of Digital Imaging 32(4), 688–693 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10278-019-00211-0

Nam, J.., Park, J., Hwang, E.J., Lee, J.H., Jin, K.., Lim, K.., Kim, H.K.: Deep learningbased classification of pulmonary nodules on computed tomogra- phy images. Journal of Digital Imaging 32(4), 688–693 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10278-019-00211-0

2019 doi
[11]

IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 31(8), 2484–2495 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TNNLS.2019.2917606

Liao, F., Liang, M., Li, Z., Hu, X., Song, S.: Evaluate the malignancy of pul- monary nodules using the 3d deep leaky noisyor network. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 31(8), 2484–2495 (2020) https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TNNLS.2019.2917606

2020
[12]

Medical Image Analysis 75, 102251 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102251

Li, X., Cheng, J.., Chen, W., Ni, D., Lei, B., Wang, T.: Translung: Transformer- based model for lung nodule classification in ct. Medical Image Analysis 75, 102251 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102251

2022
[13]

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8(4), 1249 (2018) https://doi

Sagi, O., Rokach, L.: Ensemble learning: A survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8(4), 1249 (2018) https://doi. org/10.1002/widm.1249 23

2018 doi
[14]

In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISAPP), pp

Antolovi, M., MajkiSingh, N., Vasiljevi, A.: Attentionbased feature fusion for lung nodule classification using multiple cnns. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISAPP), pp. 543...

2019
[15]

IEEE Access 9, 45678–45687 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2021.3066782

Zhang, Y., Jiang, J., Li, Y.: Multilevel attention ensemble for pulmonary nod- ule classification. IEEE Access 9, 45678–45687 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2021.3066782

2021
[16]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Li, X., Wang, W., Hu, X., Yang, J.: Selective kernel networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 510–519 (2019)

2019
[17]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05338

Schlemper, J., Oktay, O., Chen, L., Matthew, J., Knight, C., Kainz, B., Glocker, B., Rueckert, D.: Attention-Gated Networks for Improving Ultrasound Scan Plane Detection (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05338

2018 arXiv
[18]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp

Lin, T.., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Dollr, P.: Focal loss for dense object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 2980–2988 (2017)

2017
[19]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40(12), 3568–3578 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2021.3095400

Zhang, H., Xia, Y., Sun, J.: Dynamic focal loss for class imbalance in medical image classification. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40(12), 3568–3578 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2021.3095400

2021
[20]

In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2018)

Zhang, H., Cisse, M., Dauphin, Y.N., Lopez-Paz, D.: Mixup: Beyond empiri- cal risk minimization. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2018)

2018
[21]

In: IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imag- ing (ISBI), pp

Wang, X., Peng, Y., Lu, L., et al.: Testtime augmentation for improved inference in medical imaging. In: IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imag- ing (ISBI), pp. 1415–1418 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2018.8363601

2018
[22]

IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 24(6), 1621–1631 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2019.2930469

Chen, S., Zhang, H., Dong, Z., et al.: Enhanced lung nodule classification with testtime augmentation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 24(6), 1621–1631 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2019.2930469

2020
[23]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol

Raghu, M., Zhang, C., Kleinberg, J., Bengio, S.: Transfusion: Understand- ing transfer learning for medical imaging. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, pp. 3342–3352 (2019)

2019
[24]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412 (2017)

Zhang, H., Cisse, M., Dauphin, Y.N., Lopez-Paz, D.: mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[25]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., Weinberger, K.Q.: Densely connected convolutional networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 4700–4708 (2017) 24

2017
[26]

In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pp

Tan, M., Le, Q.: Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training. In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 10096–10106 (2021). PMLR

2021
[27]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02178 (2021)

Mehta, S., Rastegari, M.: Mobilevit: light-weight, general-purpose, and mobile- friendly vision transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02178 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[28]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02002

Lin, T.-Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R., He, K., Dollr, P.: Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02002

2018 arXiv
[29]

Wang, G., Li, W., Aertsen, M., Deprest, J., Ourselin, S., Vercauteren, T.: Test- time augmentation with uncertainty estimation for deep learning-based medical image segmentation (2018)

2018
[30]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[31]

Symmetry 10(10) (2018) https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10100519

Zhao, D., Zhu, D., Lu, J., Luo, Y., Zhang, G.: Synthetic medical images using f&bgan for improved lung nodules classification by multi-scale vgg16. Symmetry 10(10) (2018) https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10100519

2018 doi
[32]

Medical image analysis 57, 237–248 (2019)

Xie, Y., Zhang, J., Xia, Y.: Semi-supervised adversarial model for benign– malignant lung nodule classification on chest ct. Medical image analysis 57, 237–248 (2019)

2019
[33]

Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 72, 103347 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2021

Halder, A., Chatterjee, S., Dey, D.: Adaptive morphology aided 2-pathway convolutional neural network for lung nodule classification. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control 72, 103347 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2021. 103347

2022 doi
[34]

Mul- timedia Tools and Applications 82(24), 37573–37592 (2023) https://doi.org/10

Bushara, A.R., Kumar, V.R.S., Kumar, S.S.: Lcd-capsule network for the detection and classification of lung cancer on computed tomography images. Mul- timedia Tools and Applications 82(24), 37573–37592 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11042-023-14893-1

2023
[35]

Neural Computing and Applications 36(5), 2459–2477 (2024)

Gautam, N., Basu, A., Sarkar, R.: Lung cancer detection from thoracic ct scans using an ensemble of deep learning models. Neural Computing and Applications 36(5), 2459–2477 (2024)

2024
[36]

(eds.) Individual Comparisons by Rank- ing Methods, pp

Wilcoxon, F.: In: Kotz, S., Johnson, N.L. (eds.) Individual Comparisons by Rank- ing Methods, pp. 196–202. Springer, New York, NY (1992). https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-1-4612-4380-9 16

1992
[37]

Journal of thoracic imaging 30(2), 130–138 (2015)

Rubin, G.D.: Lung nodule and cancer detection in computed tomography screening. Journal of thoracic imaging 30(2), 130–138 (2015)

2015
[38]

Journal 25 of Thoracic Oncology 14(10), 1732–1742 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho

National Lung Screening Trial Research Team: Lung cancer incidence and mor- tality with extended follow-up in the national lung screening trial. Journal 25 of Thoracic Oncology 14(10), 1732–1742 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho. 2019.05.044

2019 doi
[39]

Chest 148(6), 1405–1414 (2015)

Tanner, N.T., Aggarwal, J., Gould, M.K., Kearney, P., Diette, G., Vachani, A., Fang, K.C., Silvestri, G.A.: Management of pulmonary nodules by commu- nity pulmonologists: a multicenter observational study. Chest 148(6), 1405–1414 (2015)

2015
[40]

In: 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV), pp

Chattopadhay, A., Sarkar, A., Howlader, P., Balasubramanian, V.N.: Grad- cam++: Generalized gradient-based visual explanations for deep convolutional networks. In: 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV), pp. 839–847 (2018). IEEE

2018
[41]

IEEE Access 10, 14033–14056 (2022)

Kaur, S., Aggarwal, D., Dabas, R., Gupta, D., Gupta, A.: Deep visual explanation for deep learning models in medical image analysis: A survey. IEEE Access 10, 14033–14056 (2022)

2022
[42]

Annals of internal medicine 162(7), 485–491 (2015)

Pinsky, P.F., Gierada, D.S., Black, W., Munden, R., Nath, H., Aberle, D., Kazerooni, E.: Performance of lung-rads in the national lung screening trial: a retrospective assessment. Annals of internal medicine 162(7), 485–491 (2015)

2015
[43]

Medical image analysis 42, 60–88 (2017)

Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B.E., Setio, A.A.A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M., Van Der Laak, J.A., Van Ginneken, B., S´ anchez, C.I.: A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Medical image analysis 42, 60–88 (2017)

2017
[44]

Nature machine intelligence 1(5), 206–215 (2019) 26

Rudin, C.: Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature machine intelligence 1(5), 206–215 (2019) 26

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 73(1), 17–48 (2023)

Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Wagle, N.S., Jemal, A.: Cancer statistics, 2023. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 73(1), 17–48 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Medical Physics 38(2), 915–931 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3528204

Armato, S.G., McLennan, G., Bidaut, L., al.: The lung image database consor- tium (lidc) and image database resource initiative (idri): a completed reference database of lung nodules on ct scans. Medical Physics 38(2), 915–931 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3528204

doi:10.1118/1.3528204 2011

[3] [3]

International journal of biomedical imaging 2013(1), 942353 (2013) 22

El-Baz, A., Beache, G.M., Gimel farb, G., Suzuki, K., Okada, K., Elnakib, A., Soliman, A., Abdollahi, B.: Computer-aided diagnosis systems for lung can- cer: challenges and methodologies. International journal of biomedical imaging 2013(1), 942353 (2013) 22

work page 2013

[4] [4]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 32(12), 2489–2499 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2013.2275072

Kostis, W.J., Reeves, A.P., Yankelevitz, D.F., Henschke, C.I.: Relationships between nodule location, density, and observer detection performance on low- dose ct images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 32(12), 2489–2499 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2013.2275072

work page arXiv 2013

[5] [5]

Computerized Med- ical Imaging and Graphics 36(4), 227–239 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j

Way, T., Fritscher, K., Mller, H., Noblesse, P.: Texture analysis of pulmonary nodules on ct for categorization using machine learning. Computerized Med- ical Imaging and Graphics 36(4), 227–239 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compmedimag.2011.12.009

doi:10.1016/j 2012

[6] [6]

Medical Physics37(1), 570–579 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259774

Zhao, B., Kligerman, S., Du, H., GalperinAizenberg, M., Zhang, P., Schwartz, L.H.: Lung nodule classification on ct images using waveletbased multiscale tex- ture analysis and support vector machines. Medical Physics37(1), 570–579 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3259774

work page doi:10.1118/1.3259774 2010

[7] [7]

Medical Image Analysis 13(5), 757–770 (2009) https://doi.org/10

Murphy, K., Ginneken, B., Reinhardt, J.M., Kabus, S., Ding, K., Du, H., Tem- pany, C.M., Summers, R.M.: A largescale evaluation of automatic pulmonary nodule detection in chest ct using local image features and knearestneighbor classification. Medical Image Analysis 13(5), 757–770 (2009) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.media.2009.05.004

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Expert Systems with Applications 69, 176–188 (2017)

Froz, B.R., Carvalho Filho, A.O., Silva, A.C., Paiva, A.C., Nunes, R.A., Gattass, M.: Lung nodule classification using artificial crawlers, directional texture and support vector machine. Expert Systems with Applications 69, 176–188 (2017)

work page 2017