Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38217704›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Automated MRI liver segmentation for anatomical segmentation, liver volumetry, and the extraction of radiomics.

Moritz Gross, Steffen Huber, Sandeep Arora, Tal Ze'evi, Stefan P Haider, Ahmet S Kucukkaya, Simon Iseke, Tom Niklas Kuhn, Bernhard Gebauer, Florian Michallek and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Downstream-Aware Automated QC of Images and AI-Generated Segmentations.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Moritz GrossDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. moritz.gross@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6831-5004
Steffen HuberDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Sandeep AroraDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Tal Ze'eviDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Stefan P HaiderDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Ahmet S KucukkayaDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Simon IsekeDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Tom Niklas KuhnDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Bernhard GebauerCharité Center for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Florian MichallekCharité Center for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Marc DeweyCharité Center for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Valérie VilgrainUniversité Paris Cité, Île-de-France, Paris, France.
Riccardo SartorisUniversité Paris Cité, Île-de-France, Paris, France.
Maxime RonotUniversité Paris Cité, Île-de-France, Paris, France.
Ariel JaffeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Mario StrazzaboscoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Julius ChapiroDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
John A OnofreyDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. john.onofrey@yale.edu.
Yale University · USCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Yale Liver CenterP30DK034989 · NIDDK · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI YASUKO IWAKIRI · 1986 to 2026
$31.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK034989
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop and evaluate a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) for automated liver segmentation, volumetry, and radiomic feature extraction on contrast-enhanced portal venous phase magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study included hepatocellular carcinoma patients from an institutional database with portal venous MRI. After manual segmentation, the data was randomly split into independent training, validation, and internal testing sets. From a collaborating institution, de-identified scans were used for external testing. The public LiverHccSeg dataset was used for further external validation. A 3D DCNN was trained to automatically segment the liver. Segmentation accuracy was quantified by the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) with respect to manual segmentation. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the internal and external test sets. Agreement of volumetry and radiomic features was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

resultsIn total, 470 patients met the inclusion criteria (63.9±8.2 years; 376 males) and 20 patients were used for external validation (41±12 years; 13 males). DSC segmentation accuracy of the DCNN was similarly high between the internal (0.97±0.01) and external (0.96±0.03) test sets (p=0.28) and demonstrated robust segmentation performance on public testing (0.93±0.03). Agreement of liver volumetry was satisfactory in the internal (ICC, 0.99), external (ICC, 0.97), and public (ICC, 0.85) test sets. Radiomic features demonstrated excellent agreement in the internal (mean ICC, 0.98±0.04), external (mean ICC, 0.94±0.10), and public (mean ICC, 0.91±0.09) datasets.

conclusionAutomated liver segmentation yields robust and generalizable segmentation performance on MRI data and can be used for volumetry and radiomic feature extraction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Liver volumetry, anatomic localization, and extraction of quantitative imaging biomarkers require accurate segmentation, but manual segmentation is time-consuming. A deep convolutional neural network demonstrates fast and accurate segmentation performance on T1-weighted portal venous MRI. KEY POINTS: • This deep convolutional neural network yields robust and generalizable liver segmentation performance on internal, external, and public testing data. • Automated liver volumetry demonstrated excellent agreement with manual volumetry. • Automated liver segmentations can be used for robust and reproducible radiomic feature extraction.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedContrast MediaFemaleHumansLiverMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerRadiomicsRetrospective StudiesContrast MediaComputer-assisted image analysesDeep learningLiverMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID38217704
PMCPMC11245591
OpenAlexW4390840866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.