Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is routinely assessed with computed tomography (CT), but CT-based differentiation between CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) remains challenging. We retrospectively evaluated a segmentation-free three-dimensional convolutional neural network (3D CNN) for three-class classification using an audited cohort of 776 adult CT examinations: 155 CRSwNP, 222 CRSsNP, and 399 endocrine orbitopathy (EO) non-CRS controls. The volumes were standardized to 150 × 150 × 150 voxels. Baseline, augmentation, and augmentation-plus-L2 configurations were compared exclusively by validation macro-F1 before the primary locked-test evaluation of the selected compact model; post hoc architecture and sensitivity analyses were subsequently performed on the same frozen test set and were considered exploratory. On the 155-patient held-out test set, the validation-selected compact model achieved an accuracy of 0.748 (95% CI 0.684–0.813), balanced accuracy of 0.683 (0.602–0.763), macro-F1 of 0.691 (0.607–0.770), and macro one-versus-rest AUC of 0.882 (0.841–0.919). Performance was strongest for EO-control discrimination (one-versus-rest AUC 0.959), whereas direct CRSsNP-versus-CRSwNP discrimination was more limited (AUC 0.704; 95% CI 0.574–0.827). The CRSwNP recall was 0.452, and 15 of 31 CRSwNP cases were classified as CRSsNP. Thus, the aggregate macro-AUC was influenced predominantly by the stronger separation of EO controls from CRS and should not be interpreted as uniformly strong CRS phenotype discrimination. In a post hoc architecture sensitivity analysis, a 3D ResNet-10 achieved a higher observed test macro-F1 of 0.742, but used approximately 206 times as many parameters as the compact model. The HiResCAM maps were technically valid in all test cases, although 38/155 maps (24.5%) peaked outside an intensity-derived patient envelope that was not a sinus segmentation mask. These findings provide a research-stage proof of concept for future studies on CRS subtype discrimination; however, potential demographic- and acquisition-related shortcuts, together with the absence of external validation, preclude any claim of clinical readiness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dalena et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: