SynthesisJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024
Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detecting and Distinguishing Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma via Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Performance in Image-Based Cancer Identification: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Hype or Reality?Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Deep learning and machine learning in image-based hepatocellular carcinoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: a health economic evaluation.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2026Review
- SMC-LUD:Large-Scale B-Mode Liver Ultrasound Dataset for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Hemangioma Classification.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Gut and liver · 2026Review
- Early screening for liver cancer must be performed.World journal of hepatology · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things Integration in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: A Smart Synergy.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- AI in Hepatology: Revolutionizing the Diagnosis and Management of Liver Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the increasing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in hepatocellular carcinoma detection, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the data on diagnostic performance metrics of AI and to compare them with clinicians' performance. A search in PubMed and Scopus was performed in January 2024 to find studies that evaluated and/or validated an AI algorithm for the detection of HCC. We performed a meta-analysis to pool the data on the metrics of diagnostic performance. Subgroup analysis based on the modality of imaging and meta-regression based on multiple parameters were performed to find potential sources of heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed using Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) reporting guidelines. Out of 3177 studies screened, 44 eligible studies were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for internally validated AI algorithms were 84% (95% CI: 81,87) and 92% (95% CI: 90,94), respectively. Externally validated AI algorithms had a pooled sensitivity of 85% (95% CI: 78,89) and specificity of 84% (95% CI: 72,91). When clinicians were internally validated, their pooled sensitivity was 70% (95% CI: 60,78), while their pooled specificity was 85% (95% CI: 77,90). This study implies that AI can perform as a diagnostic supplement for clinicians and radiologists by screening images and highlighting regions of interest, thus improving workflow.
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.