Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33842303›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Machine Learning-Based Ultrasomics Improves the Diagnostic Performance in Differentiating Focal Nodular Hyperplasia and Atypical Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Wei Li, Xiao-Zhou Lv, Xin Zheng, Si-Min Ruan, Hang-Tong Hu, Li-Da Chen, Yang Huang, Xin Li, Chu-Qing Zhang, Xiao-Yan Xie and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Microvascular Imaging of Hepatic Hemangiomas.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Current Status and Analysis of Machine Learning in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Wei LiDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiao-Zhou LvDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xin ZhengDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Si-Min RuanDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Hang-Tong HuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Li-Da ChenDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yang HuangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xin LiResearch Center, GE Healthcare, Shanghai, China.
Chu-Qing ZhangZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiao-Yan XieDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ming KuangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ming-De LuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Bo-Wen ZhuangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe typical enhancement patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) are hyper-enhanced in the arterial phase and washed out during the portal venous and late phases. However, atypical variations make a differential diagnosis both challenging and crucial. We aimed to investigate whether machine learning-based ultrasonic signatures derived from CEUS images could improve the diagnostic performance in differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and atypical hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 226 focal liver lesions, including 107 aHCC and 119 FNH lesions, examined by CEUS were reviewed retrospectively. For machine learning-based ultrasomics, 3,132 features were extracted from the images of the baseline, arterial, and portal phases. An ultrasomics signature was generated by a machine learning model. The predictive model was constructed using the support vector machine method trained with the following groups: ultrasomics features, radiologist's score, and combination of ultrasomics features and radiologist's score. The diagnostic performance was explored using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

resultsA total of 14 ultrasomics features were chosen to build an ultrasomics model, and they presented good performance in differentiating FNH and aHCC with an AUC of 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80, 0.89), a sensitivity of 76.6% (95% CI: 67.5%, 84.3%), and a specificity of 80.5% (95% CI: 70.6%, 85.9%). The model trained with a combination of ultrasomics features and the radiologist's score achieved a significantly higher AUC (0.93, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.96) than that trained with the radiologist's score (AUC: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.89,

conclusionsMachine learning-based ultrasomics performs as well as the staff radiologist in predicting the differential diagnosis of FNH and aHCC. Incorporating an ultrasomics signature into the radiologist's score improves the diagnostic performance in differentiating FNH and aHCC.

Indexed as

focal nodular hyperplasiahepatocellular carcinomamachine learningultrasomicsultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID33842303
PMCPMC8033198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.