ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2025
Evaluating artificial intelligence for a focal nodular hyperplasia diagnosis using magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary findings.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications in Fibromuscular Dysplasia: Transforming Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Clinical Decision-Making.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnosing focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) of the liver using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and compare its performance with that of radiologists.
methodsIn the first phase of the study, the MRIs of 60 patients (30 patients with FNH and 30 patients with no lesions or lesions other than FNH) were processed using a segmentation program and introduced to an AI model. After the learning process, the MRIs of 42 different patients that the AI model had no experience with were introduced to the system. In addition, a radiology resident and a radiology specialist evaluated patients with the same MR sequences. The sensitivity and specificity values were obtained from all three reviews.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the AI model were found to be 0.769, 0.966, 0.909, and 0.903, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity values were higher than those of the radiology resident and lower than those of the radiology specialist. The results of the specialist versus the AI model revealed a good agreement level, with a kappa (κ) value of 0.777.
conclusionFor the diagnosis of FNH, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the AI device were higher than those of the radiology resident and lower than those of the radiology specialist. With additional studies focused on different specific lesions of the liver, AI models are expected to be able to diagnose each liver lesion with high accuracy in the future. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: AI is studied to provide assisted or automated interpretation of radiological images with an accurate and reproducible imaging diagnosis.
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.