Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 20, 2025
Unilateral Lung Volume Analysis Using Micro-CT for Enhanced Assessment of Pulmonary Fibrosis in Preclinical Models
Published on: June 20, 2025
Quantitative CT and machine learning classification of fibrotic interstitial lung diseases
Chi Wan Koo1, James M Williams2, Grace Liu2
1Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. koo.chiwan@mayo.edu.
Objectives:
To evaluate quantitative computed tomography (QCT) features and QCT feature-based machine learning (ML) models in classifying interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). To compare QCT-ML and deep learning (DL) models' performance.
Methods:
We retrospectively identified 1085 patients with pathologically proven usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP), nonspecific interstitial pneumonitis (NSIP), and chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) who underwent peri-biopsy chest CT. Kruskal-Wallis test evaluated QCT feature associations with each ILD. QCT features, patient demographics, and pulmonary function test (PFT) results trained eXtreme Gradient Boosting (training/validation set n = 911) yielding 3 models: M1 = QCT features only; M2 = M1 plus age and sex; M3 = M2 plus PFT results. A DL model was also developed. ML and DL model areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compared for multiclass (UIP vs. NSIP vs. CHP) and binary (UIP vs. non-UIP) classification performances.
Results:
The majority (69/78 [88%]) of QCT features successfully differentiated the 3 ILDs (adjusted p ≤ 0.05). All QCT-ML models achieved higher AUC than the DL model (multiclass AUC micro-averages 0.910, 0.910, 0.925, and 0.798 and macro-averages 0.895, 0.893, 0.925, and 0.779 for M1, M2, M3, and DL respectively; binary AUC 0.880, 0.899, 0.898, and 0.869 for M1, M2, M3, and DL respectively). M3 demonstrated statistically significant better performance compared to M2 (∆AUC: 0.015, CI: [0.002, 0.029]) for multiclass prediction.
Conclusions:
QCT features successfully differentiated pathologically proven UIP, NSIP, and CHP. While QCT-based ML models outperformed a DL model for classifying ILDs, further investigations are warranted to determine if QCT-ML, DL, or a combination will be superior in ILD classification.
Key Points:
• Quantitative CT features successfully differentiated pathologically proven UIP, NSIP, and CHP. • Our quantitative CT-based machine learning models demonstrated high performance in classifying UIP, NSIP, and CHP histopathology, outperforming a deep learning model. • While our quantitative CT-based machine learning models performed better than a DL model, additional investigations are needed to determine whether either or a combination of both approaches delivers superior diagnostic performance.
