SynthesisJapanese journal of radiology2026
A systematic review of comparisons of AI and radiologists in the diagnosis of HCC in multiphase CT: implications for practice.
Synthesis in Japanese journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence models in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Patients' Perspectives on the Implementation of AI in Radiological Diagnostics: Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review aims to examine the literature of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among focal liver lesions compared to radiologists on multiphase CT images, focusing on performance metrics that include sensitivity and specificity as a minimum.
methodsWe searched Embase, PubMed and Web of Science for studies published from January 2018 to May 2024. Eligible studies evaluated AI algorithms for diagnosing HCC using multiphase CT, with radiologist interpretation as a comparator. The performance of AI models and radiologists was recorded using sensitivity and specificity from each study. TRIPOD + AI was used for quality appraisal and PROBAST was used to assess the risk of bias.
resultsSeven studies out of the 3532 reviewed were included in the review. All seven studies analysed the performance of AI models and radiologists. Two studies additionally assessed performance with and without supplementary clinical information to assist the AI model in diagnosis. Three studies additionally evaluated the performance of radiologists with assistance of the AI algorithm in diagnosis. The AI algorithms demonstrated a sensitivity ranging from 63.0 to 98.6% and a specificity of 82.0-98.6%. In comparison, junior radiologists (with less than 10 years of experience) exhibited a sensitivity of 41.2-92.0% and a specificity of 72.2-100%, while senior radiologists (with more than 10 years of experience) achieved a sensitivity between 63.9% and 93.7% and a specificity ranging from 71.9 to 99.9%.
conclusionAI algorithms demonstrate adequate performance in the diagnosis of HCC from focal liver lesions on multiphase CT images. Across geographic settings, AI could help streamline workflows and improve access to timely diagnosis. However, thoughtful implementation strategies are still needed to mitigate bias and overreliance.
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.