Back to all available

Single-inspiratory quantitative CT nomogram for enhanced PRISm and COPD differentiation: A cross-sectional study with interpretable diagnostic boundaries

anatomy-and-physiology
geriatrics
radiology-and-medical-imaging
respiratory-medicine

Abstract

Background Differentiating preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is challenging. Traditional biphasic CT scans are limited by radiation exposure, while single-inspiratory CT-based deep learning lacks interpretability. This study aimed to develop a single-inspiratory quantitative CT (QCT) nomogram integrating parenchymal, airway, and vascular parameters to redefine imaging definition boundaries.

Methods A retrospective cohort of 1,265 patients was screened, yielding 658 eligible participants (Normal: 135, PRISm: 328, COPD: 195). Single-inspiratory CT metrics (parenchymal, airway, vascular) were quantified using the Aview® system. Four logistic regression models distinguished PRISm from normal and COPD group. ROC-AUC evaluated performance.

Results Progressive deterioration in age (COPD: 73.3 vs. PRISm: 69.1 vs. Normal: 64.1 years), male predominance (84.6% COPD vs. 57.9% PRISm), pulmonary function (FEV1%, FEV1/FVC), and CT markers (Pi10: PRISm 3.65 vs. Normal 3.26, P<0.001) were observed. PRISm showed reduced superficial vessel diameter (AVD9: 2.64 mm vs. Normal 2.95 mm, P<0.001). Diagnostic models achieved AUCs up to 0.984 (PRISm vs. severe COPD) and 0.853 (PRISm vs. all COPD).

Conclusion The QCT nomogram robustly differentiates PRISm from COPD, highlighting reduced superficial vessel diameter as a key biomarker. This radiation-efficient approach enables early COPD stratification via interpretable structural-functional metrics.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].