ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Deep learning-based automated assessment of hepatic fibrosis via magnetic resonance images and nonimage data.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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.
- A comprehensive narrative review of artificial intelligence use in the diagnosis and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
Background: Accurate staging of hepatic fibrosis is critical for prognostication and management among patients with chronic liver disease, and noninvasive, efficient alternatives to biopsy are urgently needed. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of an automated deep learning (DL) algorithm for fibrosis staging and for differentiating patients with hepatic fibrosis from healthy individuals via magnetic resonance (MR) images with and without additional clinical data. Methods: A total of 500 patients from two medical centers were retrospectively analyzed. DL models were developed based on delayed-phase MR images to predict fibrosis stages. Additional models were constructed by integrating the DL algorithm with nonimaging variables, including serologic biomarkers [aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis index based on four factors (FIB-4)], viral status (hepatitis B and C), and MR scanner parameters. Diagnostic performance, was assessed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), and comparisons were through use of the DeLong test. Sensitivity and specificity of the DL and full models (DL plus all clinical features) were compared with those of experienced radiologists and serologic biomarkers via the McNemar test. Results: In the test set, the full model achieved AUROC values of 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-1.00], 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83-0.95), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73-0.88), and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.90) for staging F0-4, F1-4, F2-4, F3-4, and F4, respectively. This model significantly outperformed the DL model in early-stage classification (F0-4 and F1-4). Compared with expert radiologists, it showed superior specificity for F0-4 and higher sensitivity across the other four classification tasks. Both the DL and full models showed significantly greater specificity than did the biomarkers for staging advanced fibrosis (F3-4 and F4). Conclusions: The proposed DL algorithm provides a noninvasive method for hepatic fibrosis staging and screening, outperforming both radiologists and conventional biomarkers, and may facilitate improved clinical decision-making.
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.