ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2023
Automated CT LI-RADS v2018 scoring of liver observations using machine learning: A multivendor, multicentre retrospective study.
Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomics: Current Applications and Future Directions.MedComm · 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 the Diagnosis and Prognostic Stratification of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Evidence, Clinical Applications, and Future Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Progress in fully automated abdominal CT interpretation-an update over the past decade.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- [Diagnosis and treatment of liver diseases in the era of artificial intelligence].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2025Review
- Current State of Evidence for Use of MRI in LI-RADS.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Review
- Common pitfalls and diagnostic challenges in the application of LI-RADS CT/MRI algorithms: a comprehensive review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence techniques in liver cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Aims: Assessment of computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 major features leads to substantial inter-reader variability and potential decrease in hepatocellular carcinoma diagnostic accuracy. We assessed the performance and added-value of a machine learning (ML)-based algorithm in assessing CT LI-RADS major features and categorisation of liver observations compared with qualitative assessment performed by a panel of radiologists. Methods: High-risk patients as per LI-RADS v2018 with pathologically proven liver lesions who underwent multiphase contrast-enhanced CT at diagnosis between January 2015 and March 2019 in seven centres in five countries were retrospectively included and randomly divided into a training set (n = 84 lesions) and a test set (n = 345 lesions). An ML algorithm was trained to classify non-rim arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout, and enhancing capsule as present, absent, or of uncertain presence. LI-RADS major features and categories were compared with qualitative assessment of two independent readers. The performance of a sequential use of the ML algorithm and independent readers were also evaluated in a triage and an add-on scenario in LR-3/4 lesions. The combined evaluation of three other senior readers was used as reference standard. Results: A total of 318 patients bearing 429 lesions were included. Sensitivity and specificity for LR-5 in the test set were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96) respectively, with 242 (70.1%) lesions accurately categorised. Using the ML algorithm in a triage scenario improved the overall performance for LR-5. (0.86 and 0.93 sensitivity, 0.82 and 0.76 specificity, 78% and 82.3% accuracy for the two independent readers). Conclusions: Quantitative assessment of CT LI-RADS v2018 major features is feasible and diagnoses LR-5 observations with high performance especially in combination with the radiologist's visual analysis in patients at high-risk for HCC. Impact and implications: Assessment of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 major features leads to substantial inter-reader variability and potential decrease in hepatocellular carcinoma diagnostic accuracy. Rather than replacing radiologists, our results highlight the potential benefit from the radiologist-artificial intelligence interaction in improving focal liver lesions characterisation by using the developed algorithm as a triage tool to the radiologist's visual analysis. Such an AI-enriched diagnostic pathway may help standardise and improve the quality of analysis of liver lesions in patients at high risk for HCC, especially in non-expert centres in liver imaging. It may also impact the clinical decision-making and guide the clinician in identifying the lesions to be biopsied, for instance in patients with multiple liver focal lesions.
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.