ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Concurrent AI assistance with LI-RADS classification for contrast enhanced MRI of focal hepatic nodules: a multi-reader, multi-case study.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) assessment is subject to inter-reader variability. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI) system on the accuracy and inter-reader agreement of LI-RADS classification based on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging among radiologists with varying experience levels.
methodsThis single-center, multi-reader, multi-case retrospective study included 120 patients with 200 focal liver lesions who underwent abdominal contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations between June 2023 and May 2024. Five radiologists with different experience levels independently assessed LI-RADS classification and imaging features with and without AI assistance. The reference standard was established by consensus between two expert radiologists. Accuracy was used to measure the performance of AI systems and radiologists. Kappa or intraclass correlation coefficient was utilized to estimate inter-reader agreement.
resultsThe LI-RADS categories were as follows: 33.5% of LR-3 (67/200), 29.0% of LR-4 (58/200), 33.5% of LR-5 (67/200), and 4.0% of LR-M (8/200) cases. The AI system significantly improved the overall accuracy of LI-RADS classification from 69.9 to 80.1% (p < 0.001), with the most notable improvement among junior radiologists from 65.7 to 79.7% (p < 0.001). Inter-reader agreement for LI-RADS classification was significantly higher with AI assistance compared to that without (weighted Cohen's kappa, 0.655 vs. 0.812, p < 0.001). The AI system also enhanced the accuracy and inter-reader agreement for imaging features, including non-rim arterial phase hyperenhancement, non-peripheral washout, and restricted diffusion. Additionally, inter-reader agreement for lesion size measurements improved, with intraclass correlation coefficient changing from 0.857 to 0.951 (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe AI system significantly increases accuracy and inter-reader agreement of LI-RADS 3/4/5/M classification, particularly benefiting junior radiologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40956310What 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.