ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2024
Deep-learning models for differentiation of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis and gallbladder cancer on ultrasound.
Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biliary microbiota and metabolic reprogramming in gallstone-associated gallbladder cancer: evidence from bile, stones, mucosa and tumor tissue.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Machine learning model for differentiating xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis and gallbladder cancer in multicenter largescale study.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based computational approach for predicting ncRNAs-disease associations in metaplastic breast cancer diagnosis.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Update on the Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, and Prognostication of Gallbladder Cancer.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Review
- Gallbladder cancer masquerading as xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe radiological differentiation of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis (XGC) and gallbladder cancer (GBC) is challenging yet critical. We aimed at utilizing the deep learning (DL)-based approach for differentiating XGC and GBC on ultrasound (US).
methodsThis single-center study comprised consecutive patients with XGC and GBC from a prospectively acquired database who underwent pre-operative US evaluation of the gallbladder lesions. The performance of state-of-the-art (SOTA) DL models (GBCNet-convolutional neural network [CNN] and RadFormer, transformer) for XGC vs. GBC classification in US images was tested and compared with popular DL models and a radiologist.
resultsTwenty-five patients with XGC (mean age, 57 ± 12.3, 17 females) and 55 patients with GBC (mean age, 54.6 ± 11.9, 38 females) were included. The performance of GBCNet and RadFormer was comparable (sensitivity 89.1% vs. 87.3%, p = 0.738; specificity 72% vs. 84%, p = 0.563; and AUC 0.744 vs. 0.751, p = 0.514). The AUCs of DenseNet-121, vision transformer (ViT) and data-efficient image transformer (DeiT) were significantly smaller than of GBCNet (p = 0.015, 0.046, 0.013, respectively) and RadFormer (p = 0.012, 0.027, 0.007, respectively). The radiologist labeled US images of 24 (30%) patients non-diagnostic. In the remaining patients, the sensitivity, specificity and AUC for GBC detection were 92.7%, 35.7% and 0.642, respectively. The specificity of the radiologist was significantly lower than of GBCNet and RadFormer (p = 0.001).
conclusionSOTA DL models have a better performance than radiologists in differentiating XGC and GBC on the US.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38110782What 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.