Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39946425›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Diagnostic of fatty liver using radiomics and deep learning models on non-contrast abdominal CT.

Haoran Zhang, Jinlong Liu, Danyang Su, Zhen Bai, Yan Wu, Yuanbo Ma, Qiuju Miao, Mingyue Wang, Xiaopeng Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Research progress and future prospects for artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and treatment of fatty liver disease].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2025
    Review
  8. 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

9 authors.

Haoran ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Jinlong LiuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Danyang SuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Zhen BaiDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Yan WuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Yuanbo MaDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Qiuju MiaoDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Mingyue WangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Xiaopeng YangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2122-5490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to explore the potential of non-contrast abdominal CT radiomics and deep learning models in accurately diagnosing fatty liver. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study retrospectively enrolled 840 individuals who underwent non-contrast abdominal CT and quantitative CT (QCT) examinations at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from July 2022 to May 2023. Subsequently, these participants were divided into a training set (n = 539) and a testing set (n = 301) in a 9:5 ratio. The liver fat content measured by experienced radiologists using QCT technology served as the reference standard. The liver images from the non-contrast abdominal CT scans were then segmented as regions of interest (ROI) from which radiomics features were extracted. Two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) radiomics models, as well as 2D and 3D deep learning models, were developed, and machine learning models based on clinical data were constructed for the four-category diagnosis of fatty liver. The characteristic curves for each model were plotted, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated to assess their efficacy in the classification and diagnosis of fatty liver.

resultsA total of 840 participants were included (mean age 49.1 years ± 11.5 years [SD]; 581 males), of whom 610 (73%) had fatty liver. Among the patients with fatty liver, there were 302 with mild fatty liver (CT fat fraction of 5%-14%), 155 with moderate fatty liver (CT fat fraction of 14%-28%), and 153 with severe fatty liver (CT fat fraction >28%). Among all models used for diagnosing fatty liver, the 2D radiomics model based on the random forest algorithm achieved the highest AUC (0.973), while the 2D radiomics model based on the Bagging decision tree algorithm showed the highest sensitivity (0.873), specificity (0.939), accuracy (0.864), precision (0.880), and F1 score (0.876).

conclusionA systematic comparison was conducted on the performance of 2D and 3D radiomics models, as well as deep learning models, in the diagnosis of four-category fatty liver. This comprehensive model comparison provides a broader perspective for determining the optimal model for liver fat diagnosis. It was found that the 2D radiomics models based on the random forest and Bagging decision tree algorithms show high consistency with the QCT-based classification diagnosis of fatty liver used by experienced radiologists.

Indexed as

Deep LearningFatty LiverTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedFemaleHumansLiverMaleMiddle AgedRadiomicsRetrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID39946425
PMCPMC11825062

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.