Background Quantitative chest computed tomography (CT) enables detailed assessment of structural lung abnormalities in chronic airflow limitation (CAL). We evaluated whether lobe-based classical radiomics and frozen deep learning transfer features from inspiratory and expiratory CT improved discrimination of CAL compared with handcrafted quantitative measures. Methods In this population-based study, 2,579 participants underwent inspiratory and expiratory CT and post-bronchodilator spirometry. CAL, defined as post-bronchodilator FEV₁/FVC < 0.70, was the primary modeling endpoint and was present in 430 participants; 2,149 participants without CAL served as controls. Lung lobes were segmented using nnU-Net. Classical radiomic features were extracted with PyRadiomics, and deep learning transfer features were obtained from frozen 3D U-Net and SegResNet encoders pretrained on the non-lung AbdomenAtlas dataset. A previously developed handcrafted feature set was included as a reference. Elastic-net regularized logistic regression with 10-fold cross-validation was used for classification, and performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results Models based on expiratory features outperformed inspiratory-only models (AUC improvement 0.03–0.08). The best performance was achieved by classical radiomics combining inspiratory and expiratory features (AUC 0.87; positive predictive value 49%; negative predictive value 95%), exceeding the handcrafted model (AUC 0.81; PPV 34%; NPV 94%). Frozen transfer features from the non-lung-pretrained encoders showed slightly lower discrimination than classical radiomics, and combining feature types did not improve performance. Conclusion Lobe-based classical radiomics from combined inspiratory and expiratory CT improved cross-validated discrimination of spirometry-defined CAL in this population-based cohort, with expiratory imaging contributing substantially to optimal performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bäcklin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: