Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36757454›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023

Improving detection performance of hepatocellular carcinoma and interobserver agreement for liver imaging reporting and data system on CT using deep learning reconstruction.

Naomasa Okimoto, Koichiro Yasaka, Masafumi Kaiume, Noriko Kanemaru, Yuichi Suzuki, Osamu Abe

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naomasa OkimotoDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Koichiro YasakaDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. koyasaka@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0324-6562
Masafumi KaiumeDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Noriko KanemaruDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Yuichi SuzukiDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Osamu AbeDepartment of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
The University of Tokyo · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to compare the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection performance, interobserver agreement for Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) categories, and image quality between deep learning reconstruction (DLR) and conventional hybrid iterative reconstruction (Hybrid IR) in CT.

methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced CT between October 2021 and March 2022. Arterial, portal, and delayed phase images were reconstructed using DLR and Hybrid IR. Two blinded readers independently read the image sets with detecting HCCs, scoring LI-RADS, and evaluating image quality.

resultsA total of 26 patients with HCC (mean age, 73 years ± 12.3) and 23 patients without HCC (mean age, 66 years ± 14.7) were included. The figures of merit (FOM) for the jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis in detecting HCC averaged for the readers were 0.925 (reader 1, 0.937; reader 2, 0.913) in DLR and 0.878 (reader 1, 0.904; reader 2, 0.851) in Hybrid IR, and the FOM in DLR were significantly higher than that in Hybrid IR (p = 0.038). The interobserver agreement (Cohen's weighted kappa statistics) for LI-RADS categories was moderate for DLR (0.595; 95% CI, 0.585-0.605) and significantly superior to Hybrid IR (0.568; 95% CI, 0.553-0.582). According to both readers, DLR was significantly superior to Hybrid IR in terms of image quality (p ≤ 0.021).

conclusionDLR improved HCC detection, interobserver agreement for LI-RADS categories, and image quality in evaluations of HCC compared to Hybrid IR in abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced CT.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiverLiver NeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overDeep LearningFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationTomography, X-RayDeep learningHepatocellular carcinomaLiverMultidetector computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID36757454
PMCPMC10115733
OpenAlexW4319656138

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.