ArticleInsights into imaging2023
CT volume analysis in living donor liver transplantation: accuracy of three different approaches.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Volumetric Increase of a Free Omental Flap in Breast Reconstruction: A Case Report with a Focus on Body Weight Correlation.Journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Precision of computed tomography volumetry in living donor liver transplantation: current evidence, limitations, and future directions.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Article
- Liver volumetry software: a narrative review of technical performance and clinical utility.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Comparison of Manual, Semi-Automatic, and Automatic CT-Based Methods for Liver Volume Segmentation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based volumetry of the future liver remnants and prediction of candidates for major hepatectomy.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Outcomes of major liver resection for children with hepatoblastoma weighing less than 10 kg: avoiding liver transplantation with extended or extreme resection.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Radiomics Beyond Radiology: Literature Review on Prediction of Future Liver Remnant Volume and Function Before Hepatic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- High Temperature and Ethinylestradiol May Reduce Body Growth, Liver and Hepatocyte Volumes and Lipid Droplets in Adult Male Guppies.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- A Cloud-Based System for Automated AI Image Analysis and Reporting.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Reproducibility and efficiency of liver volumetry using manual method and liver analysis software.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2024Article
- Fully automated assessment of the future liver remnant in a blood-free setting via CT before major hepatectomy via deep learning.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Liver volumetric and anatomic assessment in living donor liver transplantation: The role of modern imaging and artificial intelligence.World journal of transplantation · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this retrospective study is to compare and evaluate accuracy of three different approaches of liver volume quantification in living donor transplantations.
methodsThis is a single-center, retrospective study of 60 donors. The total and right lobe liver volumes were analyzed in the portal-venous phase by two independent radiologists who estimated the volumes using manual, semi-automated and automated segmentation methods. The measured right lobe liver volume was compared to the real weight of the graft after back-table examinations.
resultsThe mean estimated overall liver volume was 1164.4 ± 137.0 mL for manual, 1277.4 ± 190.4 mL for semi-automated and 1240.1 ± 108.5 mL for automated segmentation. The mean estimated right lobe volume was 762.0 ± 122.4 mL for manual, 792.9 ± 139.9 mL for semi-automated and 765.4 ± 132.7 mL for automated segmentation. The mean graft weight was 711.2 ± 142.9 g. The manual method better correlated with the graft weight (r = 0.730) in comparison with the semi-automated (r = 0.685) and the automated (r = 0.699) methods (p < 0.001). The mean error ratio in volume estimation by each application was 12.7 ± 16.6% for manual, 17.1 ± 17.3% for semi-automated, 14.7 ± 16.8% for automated methods. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean error ratio of the manual and the semi-automated segmentations (p = 0.017), and no statistically significant difference between the manual and the automated applications (p = 0.199).
conclusionVolume analysis application better correlates with graft weight, but there is no obvious difference between correlation coefficients of all three methods. All three modalities had an error ratio, of which the semi-automated method showed the highest value. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Volume analysis application was more accurate, but there is no drastic difference between correlation coefficients of all three 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.