TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparative performance analysis of deep learning architectures  for pulmonary nodule candidate classification: a computational  study using public Benchmark datasets
AU  - Kılıç, Koray Kaya
AU  - Çavuşoğlu Yalçın, Nilay
AU  - Yalçın, Mustafa
AU  - Kahvecioğlu, Nevfel
PY  - 2026
DA  - March
Y2  - 2026
DO  - 10.47582/jompac.1870165
JF  - Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care
JO  - J Med Palliat Care / JOMPAC / jompac
PB  - MediHealth Academy Yayıncılık
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2717-7505
SP  - 363
EP  - 368
VL  - 7
IS  - 2
LA  - en
AB  - 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, mAP@0.5, 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, mAP@0.5 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.
KW  - Deep learning
KW  - computer-aided detection
KW  - pulmonary nodules
KW  - Benchmark datasets
KW  - LUNA16
KW  - FROC analysis
CR  - 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
CR  - LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-444. doi:10.1038/nature14539
CR  - 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
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - 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
CR  - Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2018.
CR  - 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
CR  - Loshchilov I, Hutter F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. ICLR Conf Proc. 2019. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1811.10154
CR  - 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
CR  - Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1993.
CR  - US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Decision Support Software: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. FDA; 2022.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.47582/jompac.1870165
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/5634541
ER  -