ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Machine learning-based radiomic analysis and growth visualization for ablation site recurrence diagnosis in follow-up CT.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The efficacy and prognosis analysis of radiofrequency thermocoagulation and percutaneous balloon compression for recurrent trigeminal neuralgia: a retrospective study.The Korean journal of pain · 2026Article
- Performance of artificial intelligence in predicting hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after thermal ablation: A systematic review.World journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Interventional Radiology.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Applications of artificial intelligence in interventional oncology: An up-to-date review of the literature.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDetecting ablation site recurrence (ASR) after thermal ablation remains a challenge for radiologists due to the similarity between tumor recurrence and post-ablative changes. Radiomic analysis and machine learning methods may show additional value in addressing this challenge. The present study primarily sought to determine the efficacy of radiomic analysis in detecting ASR on follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans. The second aim was to develop a visualization tool capable of emphasizing regions of ASR between follow-up scans in individual patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsLasso regression and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) classifiers were employed for modeling radiomic features extracted from regions of interest delineated by two radiologists. A leave-one-out test (LOOT) was utilized for performance evaluation. A visualization method, creating difference heatmaps (diff-maps) between two follow-up scans, was developed to emphasize regions of growth and thereby highlighting potential ASR.
resultsA total of 55 patients, including 20 with and 35 without ASR, were included in the radiomic analysis. The best performing model was achieved by Lasso regression tested with the LOOT approach, reaching an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97 and an accuracy of 92.73%. The XGBoost classifier demonstrated better performance when trained with all extracted radiomic features than without feature selection, achieving an AUC of 0.93 and an accuracy of 89.09%. The diff-maps correctly highlighted post-ablative liver tumor recurrence in all patients.
conclusionsMachine learning-based radiomic analysis and growth visualization proved effective in detecting ablation site recurrence on follow-up CT scans.
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.