ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
From promise to practice: a scoping review of AI applications in abdominal radiology.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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.
- Large language models and prostate MRI reporting: a stringent testbed for safe deployment under evolving AI, health-data, and cybersecurity regulation.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI is rapidly transforming abdominal radiology. This scoping review mapped current applications across segmentation, detection, classification, prediction, and workflow optimization based on 432 studies published between 2019 and 2024. Most studies focused on CT imaging, with fewer involving MRI, ultrasound, or X-ray. Segmentation models (e.g., U-Net) performed well in liver and pancreatic imaging (Dice coefficient 0.65-0.90). Classification models (e.g., ResNet, DenseNet) were commonly used for diagnostic labeling, with reported sensitivities ranging from 52 to 100% and specificities from 40.7 to 99%. A small number of studies employed true object detection models (e.g., YOLOv3, YOLOv7, Mask R-CNN) capable of spatial lesion localization, marking an emerging trend toward localization-based AI. Predictive models demonstrated AUCs between 0.62 and 0.99 but often lacked interpretability and external validation. Workflow optimization studies reported improved efficiency (e.g., reduced report turnaround and scan repetition), though standardized benchmarks were often missing. Major gaps identified include limited real-world validation, underuse of non-CT modalities, and unclear regulatory pathways. Successful clinical integration will require robust validation, practical implementation, and interdisciplinary collaboration.
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.