Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39224209›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024

Diagnostic performance of AI-based models versus physicians among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Feras Al-Obeidat, Wael Hafez, Muneir Gador, Nesma Ahmed, Marwa Muhammed Abdeljawad, Antesh Yadav, Asrar Rashed

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Early screening for liver cancer must be performed.World journal of hepatology · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

7 authors.

Feras Al-ObeidatCollege of Technological Innovation, Zayed University, Abu Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Wael HafezNMC Royal Hospital, Khalifa City, United Arab Emirates.
Muneir GadorInternal Medicine Department, Medical Research and Clinical Studies Institute, The National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt.
Nesma AhmedEMS, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Marwa Muhammed AbdeljawadEMS, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Antesh YadavNMC Royal Hospital, Khalifa City, United Arab Emirates.
Asrar RashedNMC Royal Hospital, Khalifa City, United Arab Emirates.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common primary liver cancer that requires early diagnosis due to its poor prognosis. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have facilitated hepatocellular carcinoma detection using multiple AI models; however, their performance is still uncertain. Aim: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different AI models with that of clinicians in the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for eligible studies. The R package was used to synthesize the results. The outcomes of various studies were aggregated using fixed-effect and random-effects models. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using I-squared (I Results: We included seven studies in our meta-analysis;. Both physicians and AI-based models scored an average sensitivity of 93%. Great variation in sensitivity, accuracy, and specificity was observed depending on the model and diagnostic technique used. The region-based convolutional neural network (RCNN) model showed high sensitivity (96%). Physicians had the highest specificity in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma(100%); furthermore, models-based convolutional neural networks achieved high sensitivity. Models based on AI-assisted Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) showed poor accuracy (69.9%) compared to physicians and other models. The leave-one-out sensitivity revealed high heterogeneity among studies, which represented true differences among the studies. Conclusion: Models based on Faster R-CNN excel in image classification and data extraction, while both CNN-based models and models combining contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with artificial intelligence (AI) had good sensitivity. Although AI models outperform physicians in diagnosing HCC, they should be utilized as supportive tools to help make more accurate and timely decisions.

Indexed as

AI modelsartificial intelligencediagnostic performanceHCChepatocellular carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID39224209
PMCPMC11368160

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.