Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34627393›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2021

Predicting microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a deep learning model validated across hospitals.

Shu-Cheng Liu, Jesyin Lai, Jhao-Yu Huang, Chia-Fong Cho, Pei Hua Lee, Min-Hsuan Lu, Chun-Chieh Yeh, Jiaxin Yu, Wei-Ching Lin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shu-Cheng Liu *AI Innovation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jesyin Lai *AI Innovation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jhao-Yu HuangAI Innovation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chia-Fong ChoAI Innovation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Pei Hua LeeDepartment of Medical Imaging, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Min-Hsuan LuAI Innovation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chun-Chieh YehDepartment of Surgery, Organ Transplantation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jiaxin YuAI Innovation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. jiaxin.yu@mail.cmuh.org.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9491-9020
Wei-Ching LinAI Innovation Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. saynorec@yahoo.com.tw.
China Medical University · TWAsia University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe accuracy of estimating microvascular invasion (MVI) preoperatively in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by clinical observers is low. Most recent studies constructed MVI predictive models utilizing radiological and/or radiomics features extracted from computed tomography (CT) images. These methods, however, rely heavily on human experiences and require manual tumor contouring. We developed a deep learning-based framework for preoperative MVI prediction by using CT images of arterial phase (AP) with simple tumor labeling and without the need of manual feature extraction. The model was further validated on CT images that were originally scanned at multiple different hospitals.

methodsCT images of AP were acquired for 309 patients from China Medical University Hospital (CMUH). Images of 164 patients, who took their CT scanning at 54 different hospitals but were referred to CMUH, were also collected. Deep learning (ResNet-18) and machine learning (support vector machine) models were constructed with AP images and/or patients' clinical factors (CFs), and their performance was compared systematically. All models were independently evaluated on two patient cohorts: validation set (within CMUH) and external set (other hospitals). Subsequently, explainability of the best model was visualized using gradient-weighted class activation map (Grad-CAM).

resultsThe ResNet-18 model built with AP images and patients' clinical factors was superior than other models achieving a highest AUC of 0.845. When evaluating on the external set, the model produced an AUC of 0.777, approaching its performance on the validation set. Model interpretation with Grad-CAM revealed that MVI relevant imaging features on CT images were captured and learned by the ResNet-18 model.

conclusionsThis framework provide evidence showing the generalizability and robustness of ResNet-18 in predicting MVI using CT images of AP scanned at multiple different hospitals. Attention heatmaps obtained from model explainability further confirmed that ResNet-18 focused on imaging features on CT overlapping with the conditions used by radiologists to estimate MVI clinically.

Indexed as

Deep LearningNeoplasm InvasivenessAgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHospitalsHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerRetrospective StudiesDeep learningExternal validationHepatocellular carcinomaMicrovascular invasion

Identifiers

PMID34627393
PMCPMC8501676
OpenAlexW3205069831

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.