JOMPAC

Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care (JOMPAC) is an open access scientific journal with independent, unbiased, and double-blind review under international guidelines. The purpose of JOMPAC is to contribute to the literature by publishing articles on health sciences and medicine.

EndNote Style
Index
Original Article
Comparative performance analysis of deep learning architectures for pulmonary nodule candidate classification: a computational study using public Benchmark datasets
Aims: To systematically compare the candidate-level classification performance of four state-of-the-art deep learning architectures—U-Net, ResNet-50, Vision Transformer (ViT-B/16), and YOLOv8—for pulmonary nodule candidate classification using patch-based classification on public benchmark CT datasets, and to evaluate the trade-off between detection accuracy and computational efficiency.
Methods: This computational study utilized publicly available, de-identified datasets including LUNA16 (Lung Nodule Analysis 2016) and LIDC-IDRI (Lung Image Database Consortium). Candidate nodule locations were generated using a multi-scale Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) blob detector applied to full CT volumes. From these candidates, 64×64×64 voxel patches were extracted and classified as true nodules or false positives. The dataset was partitioned at the patient level: 70% training, 15% validation, and 15% held-out test. Stratified 5-fold cross-validation was conducted exclusively within the training set for hyperparameter optimization. Four deep learning architectures were trained under identical protocols: U-Net (encoder decoder), ResNet-50 (residual CNN), ViT-B/16 (self-attention transformer, adapted to 3D patch input via 3D patch embedding), and YOLOv8 (real-time detector, applied slice-by-slice with 3D aggregation). Primary performance metrics included sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, [email protected], and area under the ROC curve (AUC). Free-response ROC (FROC) analysis was performed following LUNA16 challenge standards, reporting sensitivity at 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 false positives per scan (FP/scan). Statistical comparisons focused on AUC using paired DeLong’s test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Bootstrap confidence intervals (n=2,000 resamples) were computed for sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score.
Results: Across 888 CT scans (1,186 annotated nodules; LUNA16 test set: 133 scans, 178 nodules), Vision Transformer achieved the highest candidate-level patch classification performance: sensitivity 94.2% (95% CI: 91.8–96.1%), specificity 92.8% (95% CI: 90.3–94.9%), F1-score 0.935, [email protected] 0.947, and AUC 0.971 (95% CI: 0.958–0.982). Pairwise AUC comparisons using DeLong’s test confirmed superior discrimination for ViT-B/16 relative to the comparator architectures. FROC analysis demonstrated ViT-B/16 achieved the highest mean sensitivity at 7 operating points (CPM=0.847), outperforming ResNet-50 (CPM=0.798), YOLOv8 (CPM=0.781), and U-Net (CPM=0.762). However, ViT-B/16 required 3.2× longer inference time (8.4 vs 2.6 seconds/scan) and 3.7× more trainable parameters than ResNet-50. YOLOv8 demonstrated superior computational efficiency with the shortest inference time (1.1 seconds/scan).
Conclusion: The attention-based Vision Transformer architecture achieved superior candidate-level patch classification performance for pulmonary nodule candidate evaluation; however, this advantage must be weighed against substantial computational costs. Architecture selection should be guided by deployment context, with ResNet-50 offering optimal accuracy efficiency balance for clinical deployment and YOLOv8 for real-time screening applications.


1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10. 3322/caac.21660
2. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-444. doi:10.1038/nature14539
3. Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE, et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med Image Anal. 2017;42:60-88. doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005
4. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U-Net: convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer; 2015:234-241.
5. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. Proc IEEE CVPR. 2016:770-778. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2016.90
6. Dosovitskiy A, Beyer L, Kolesnikov A, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: transformers for image recognition at scale. ICLR Conf Proc. 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2010.11929
7. Terven J, Cordova-Esparza D. A comprehensive review of YOLO: from YOLOv1 to YOLOv8 and beyond. arXiv [Preprint]. 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.00501
8. Matsoukas C, Haslum JF, Söderberg M, Smith K. Is it time to replace CNNs with transformers for medical images? arXiv [Preprint]. 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2108.09038
9. Shamshad F, Khan S, Zamir SW, et al. Transformers in medical imaging: a survey. Med Image Anal. 2023;88:102802. doi:10.1016/j.media.2023.102802
10. Setio AAA, Traverso A, de Bel T, et al. Validation, comparison, and combination of algorithms for automatic detection of pulmonary nodules in CT images: the LUNA16 challenge. Med Image. 2017;42:1-13. doi:10.1016/j.media.2017.06.015
11. Armato SG III, McLennan G, Bidaut L, et al. The lung image database consortium (LIDC) and image database resource initiative (IDRI). Med Phys. 2011;38(2):915-931. doi:10.1118/1.3528204
12. Price WN II, Cohen IG. Privacy in the age of medical big data. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):37-43. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0272-7
13. Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2018.
14. Obermeyer Z, Emanuel EJ. Predicting the future-big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1216-1219. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1606181
15. Loshchilov I, Hutter F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. ICLR Conf Proc. 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1811.10154
16. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated ROC curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837-845. doi:10.2307/2531595
17. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1993.
18. US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Decision Support Software: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. FDA; 2022.
Volume 7, Issue 2, 2026
Page : 363-368
_Footer