Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37480549›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Follow-up of liver metastases: a comparison of deep learning and RECIST 1.1.

Leo Joskowicz, Adi Szeskin, Shalom Rochman, Aviv Dodi, Richard Lederman, Hila Fruchtman-Brot, Yusef Azraq, Jacob Sosna

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Artificial intelligence for response prediction and personalisation in radiation oncology.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leo Joskowicz *School of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Adi SzeskinSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Shalom RochmanSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Aviv DodiSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Richard LedermanDept of Radiology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12000, 91120, Jerusalem, Israel.
Hila Fruchtman-BrotDept of Radiology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12000, 91120, Jerusalem, Israel.
Yusef AzraqDept of Radiology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12000, 91120, Jerusalem, Israel.
Jacob Sosna *Dept of Radiology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, POB 12000, 91120, Jerusalem, Israel. jacobs@hadassah.org.il.
Hebrew University of Jerusalem · ILHadassah Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare liver metastases changes in CT assessed by radiologists using RECIST 1.1 and with aided simultaneous deep learning-based volumetric lesion changes analysis.

methodsA total of 86 abdominal CT studies from 43 patients (prior and current scans) of abdominal CT scans of patients with 1041 liver metastases (mean = 12.1, std = 11.9, range 1-49) were analyzed. Two radiologists performed readings of all pairs; conventional with RECIST 1.1 and with computer-aided assessment. For computer-aided reading, we used a novel simultaneous multi-channel 3D R2U-Net classifier trained and validated on other scans. The reference was established by having an expert radiologist validate the computed lesion detection and segmentation. The results were then verified and modified as needed by another independent radiologist. The primary outcome measure was the disease status assessment with the conventional and the computer-aided readings with respect to the reference.

resultsFor conventional and computer-aided reading, there was a difference in disease status classification in 40 out of 86 (46.51%) and 10 out of 86 (27.9%) CT studies with respect to the reference, respectively. Computer-aided reading improved conventional reading in 30 CT studies by 34.5% for two readers (23.2% and 46.51%) with respect to the reference standard. The main reason for the difference between the two readings was lesion volume differences (p = 0.01).

conclusionsAI-based computer-aided analysis of liver metastases may improve the accuracy of the evaluation of neoplastic liver disease status. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: AI may aid radiologists to improve the accuracy of evaluating changes over time in metastasis of the liver. KEY POINTS: • Classification of liver metastasis changes improved significantly in one-third of the cases with an automatically generated comprehensive lesion and lesion changes report. • Simultaneous deep learning changes detection and volumetric assessment may improve the evaluation of liver metastases temporal changes potentially improving disease management.

Indexed as

Deep LearningLiver NeoplasmsFollow-Up StudiesHumansResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsTomography, X-Ray ComputedFollow-up studiesLiver metastasesResponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors

Identifiers

PMID37480549
OpenAlexW4385074634

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.