ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
Diagnostic performance of AI-based models versus physicians among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in the radiologic diagnosis of major urological cancers: a meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-based diagnosis for facial fractures, advantages compared with conventional imaging diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Explainable AI in Cancer Imaging: Scoping Review of Methods, Modalities, and Clinical Integration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Using AI Algorithms and Machine Learning in the Analysis of a Bio-Purification Method (Therapeutic Emesis, Known as "Vamana Karma"): Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Early screening for liver cancer must be performed.World journal of hepatology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in contrast enhanced ultrasound: A new era for liver lesion assessment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF rs4444903) Gene Polymorphism and Risk of HCC in Egyptian HCV Cirrhotic Patients.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Enhancing ultrasonographic detection of hepatocellular carcinoma with artificial intelligence: current applications, challenges and future directions.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Bibliometrics of artificial intelligence applications in hepatobiliary surgery from 2014 to 2024.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
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
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
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.