Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36434398›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Optimal radiological gallbladder lesion characterization by combining visual assessment with CT-based radiomics.

Yunchao Yin, Derya Yakar, Jules J G Slangen, Frederik J H Hoogwater, Thomas C Kwee, Robbert J de Haas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Applications of artificial intelligence in biliary tract cancers.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Yunchao YinDepartment of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Derya YakarDepartment of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jules J G SlangenDepartment of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Frederik J H HoogwaterDepartment of Surgery, Section Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Thomas C KweeDepartment of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Robbert J de HaasDepartment of Radiology, Medical Imaging Center Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.j.de.haas@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4915-6781

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDifferentiating benign gallbladder diseases from gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains a radiological challenge because they can appear very similar on imaging. This study aimed at investigating whether CT-based radiomic features of suspicious gallbladder lesions analyzed by machine learning algorithms could adequately discriminate benign gallbladder disease from GBC. In addition, the added value of machine learning models to radiological visual CT-scan interpretation was assessed.

methodsPatients were retrospectively selected based on confirmed histopathological diagnosis and available contrast-enhanced portal venous phase CT-scan. The radiomic features were extracted from the entire gallbladder, then further analyzed by machine learning classifiers based on Lasso regression, Ridge regression, and XG Boosting. The results of the best-performing classifier were combined with radiological visual CT diagnosis and then compared with radiological visual CT assessment alone.

resultsIn total, 127 patients were included: 83 patients with benign gallbladder lesions and 44 patients with GBC. Among all machine learning classifiers, XG boosting achieved the best AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.72-0.91) and the highest accuracy rate of 73% (95% CI 65-80%). When combining radiological visual interpretation and predictions of the XG boosting classifier, the highest diagnostic performance was achieved with an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-1.00), a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 86-100%), a specificity of 93% (95% CI 90-100%), and an accuracy of 92% (95% CI 90-100%).

conclusionsMachine learning analysis of CT-based radiomic features shows promising results in discriminating benign from malignant gallbladder disease. Combining CT-based radiomic analysis and radiological visual interpretation provided the most optimal strategy for GBC and benign gallbladder disease differentiation. KEY POINTS: Radiomic-based machine learning algorithms are able to differentiate benign gallbladder disease from gallbladder cancer. Combining machine learning algorithms with a radiological visual interpretation of gallbladder lesions at CT increases the specificity, compared to visual interpretation alone, from 73 to 93% and the accuracy from 85 to 92%. Combined use of machine learning algorithms and radiological visual assessment seems the most optimal strategy for GBC and benign gallbladder disease differentiation.

Indexed as

Gallbladder NeoplasmsHumansMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedGallbladder neoplasmsMachine learningMedical oncologyTomography, spiral computed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.