ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2021
Diagnosis of focal liver lesions with deep learning-based multi-channel analysis of hepatocyte-specific contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and oral microbiome: Reshaping the diagnostic and therapeutic paradigm of OSCC.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Review
- Deep learning and machine learning in image-based hepatocellular carcinoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Comprehensive comparative analysis of explainable deep learning model for differentiation of brucellar spondylitis and tuberculous spondylitis through MRI sequences.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Evaluating artificial intelligence for a focal nodular hyperplasia diagnosis using magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary findings.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Interactive Explainable Deep Learning Model for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis at Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI: A Retrospective, Multicenter, Diagnostic Study.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based uncertainty quantification for quality assurance in hepatobiliary imaging-based techniques.Oncotarget · 2025Article
- Utility of a novel scoring system for difficulty of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A combined model based on radiomics features of Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the Kupffer phase for the diagnosis of well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma and atypical focal liver lesions: a prospective, multicenter study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Liver Diseases: Recent Advances.Advances in therapy · 2024Review
- Deep Learning Methods in Medical Image-Based Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence to Early Predict Liver Metastases in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Prospectives.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Application of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.eGastroenterology · 2023Review
- Review
- Fully automating LI-RADS on MRI with deep learning-guided lesion segmentation, feature characterization, and score inference.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Microvascular flow imaging to differentiate focal hepatic lesions: the spoke-wheel pattern as a specific sign of focal nodular hyperplasia.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Differential diagnosis of different types of solid focal liver lesions using two-dimensional shear wave elastography.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Focal Liver Lesion MRI Feature Identification Using Efficientnet and MONAI: A Feasibility Study.Cells · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe nature of input data is an essential factor when training neural networks. Research concerning magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based diagnosis of liver tumors using deep learning has been rapidly advancing. Still, evidence to support the utilization of multi-dimensional and multi-parametric image data is lacking. Due to higher information content, three-dimensional input should presumably result in higher classification precision. Also, the differentiation between focal liver lesions (FLLs) can only be plausible with simultaneous analysis of multi-sequence MRI images.
aimTo compare diagnostic efficiency of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D)-densely connected convolutional neural networks (DenseNet) for FLLs on multi-sequence MRI.
methodsWe retrospectively collected T2-weighted, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced arterial phase, portal venous phase, and hepatobiliary phase MRI scans from patients with focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) or liver metastases (MET). Our search identified 71 FNH, 69 HCC and 76 MET. After volume registration, the same three most representative axial slices from all sequences were combined into four-channel images to train the 2D-DenseNet264 network. Identical bounding boxes were selected on all scans and stacked into 4D volumes to train the 3D-DenseNet264 model. The test set consisted of 10-10-10 tumors. The performance of the models was compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and f1 scores.
resultsThe average AUC value of the 2D model (0.98) was slightly higher than that of the 3D model (0.94). Mean PPV, sensitivity, NPV, specificity and f1 scores (0.94, 0.93, 0.97, 0.97, and 0.93) of the 2D model were also superior to metrics of the 3D model (0.84, 0.83, 0.92, 0.92, and 0.83). The classification metrics of FNH were 0.91, 1.00, 1.00, 0.95, and 0.95 using the 2D and 0.90, 0.90, 0.95, 0.95, and 0.90 using the 3D models. The 2D and 3D networks' performance in the diagnosis of HCC were 1.00, 0.80, 0.91, 1.00, and 0.89 and 0.88, 0.70, 0.86, 0.95, and 0.78, respectively; while the evaluation of MET lesions resulted in 0.91, 1.00, 1.00, 0.95, and 0.95 and 0.75, 0.90, 0.94, 0.85, and 0.82 using the 2D and 3D networks, respectively.
conclusionBoth 2D and 3D-DenseNets can differentiate FNH, HCC and MET with good accuracy when trained on hepatocyte-specific contrast-enhanced multi-sequence MRI volumes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.