ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Fully automating LI-RADS on MRI with deep learning-guided lesion segmentation, feature characterization, and score inference.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- LI-RADS-aligned artificial intelligence for liver cancer diagnosis: methods, evidence, and clinical readiness.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Concurrent AI assistance with LI-RADS classification for contrast enhanced MRI of focal hepatic nodules: a multi-reader, multi-case study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in contrast enhanced ultrasound: A new era for liver lesion assessment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- The value of using deep learning to predict proliferative hepatocellular carcinoma based on multiphasic magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Current State of Evidence for Use of MRI in LI-RADS.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- LI-RADS-based hepatocellular carcinoma risk mapping using contrast-enhanced MRI and self-configuring deep learning.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Leveraging deep learning in the radiology community has great potential and practical significance. To explore the potential of fitting deep learning methods into the current Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) system, this paper provides a complete and fully automatic deep learning solution for the LI-RADS system and investigates its model performance in liver lesion segmentation and classification. Methods: To achieve this, a deep learning study design process is formulated, including clinical problem formulation, corresponding deep learning task identification, data acquisition, data preprocessing, and algorithm validation. On top of segmentation, a UNet++-based segmentation approach with supervised learning was performed by using 33,078 raw images obtained from 111 patients, which are collected from 2010 to 2017. The key innovation is that the proposed framework introduces one more step called feature characterization before LI-RADS score classification in comparison to prior work. In this step, a feature characterization network with multi-task learning and joint training strategy was proposed, followed by an inference module to generate the final LI-RADS score. Results: Both liver segmentation and feature characterization models were evaluated, and comprehensive statistical analysis was conducted with detailed discussions. Median DICE of liver lesion segmentation was able to achieve 0.879. Based on different thresholds, recall changes within a range of 0.7 to 0.9, and precision always stays high greater than 0.9. Segmentation model performance was also evaluated on the patient level and lesion level, and the evaluation results of (precision, recall) on the patient level were much better at approximately (1, 0.9). Lesion classification was evaluated to have an overall accuracy of 76%, and most mis-classification cases happen in the neighboring categories, which is reasonable since it is naturally difficult to distinguish LI-RADS 4 from LI-RADS 5. Discussion: In addition to investigating the performance of the proposed model itself, extensive comparison experiment was also conducted. This study shows that our proposed framework with feature characterization greatly improves the diagnostic performance which also validates the effectiveness of the added feature characterization step. Since this step could output the feature characterization results instead of simply generating a final score, it is able to unbox the black-box for the proposed algorithm thus improves the explainability.
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.