ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2022
Comparison of automatic liver volumetry performance using different types of magnetic resonance images.
Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- From promise to practice: a scoping review of AI applications in abdominal radiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-powered automatic volume calculation in medical images - available tools, performance and challenges for nuclear medicine.Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- Clinical impact of artificial intelligence-based solutions on imaging of the pancreas and liver.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Computed tomography-based measurements of normative liver and spleen volumes in children.Pediatric radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Measurements of liver volume from MR images can be valuable for both clinical and research applications. Automated methods using convolutional neural networks have been used successfully for this using a variety of different MR image types as input. In this work, we sought to determine which types of magnetic resonance images give the best performance when used to train convolutional neural networks for liver segmentation and volumetry. Abdominal MRI scans were performed at 3 Tesla on 42 adolescents with obesity. Scans included Dixon imaging (giving water, fat, and T2* images) and low-resolution T2-weighted scout images. Multiple convolutional neural network models using a 3D U-Net architecture were trained with different input images. Whole-liver manual segmentations were used for reference. Segmentation performance was measured using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95% Hausdorff distance. Liver volume accuracy was evaluated using bias, precision, intraclass correlation coefficient, normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), and Bland-Altman analyses. The models trained using both water and fat images performed best, giving DSC = 0.94 and NRMSE = 4.2%. Models trained without the water image as input all performed worse, including in participants with elevated liver fat. Models using the T2-weighted scout images underperformed the Dixon-based models, but provided acceptable performance (DSC ≥ 0.92, NMRSE ≤6.6%) for use in longitudinal pediatric obesity interventions. The model using Dixon water and fat images as input gave the best performance, with results comparable to inter-reader variability and state-of-the-art methods.
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.