ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Deep learning for non-invasive detection of steatosis and fibrosis in MASLD: a multicenter study with a new fibroscan-labelled ultrasound dataset.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop and validate deep learning models for non-invasive assessment of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis using conventional B-mode ultrasound images, with Fibroscan-derived measurement as reference standard.
methodsWe utilized a multi-source approach comprising three distinct ultrasound datasets of patients with MASLD: a private clinical dataset (DS1, n = 111 patients, 1131 images), and two subsets from the public BEHSOF repository-Behbood Clinic subset (DS2, n = 95 patients, 1328 images) for training/validation, and Taleghani Hospital subset (DS3, n = 18 patients, 185 images) for external testing. Additionally, we validated on a temporally independent test set (DS4, n = 23 patients, 155 images). Deep learning models, including EfficientNet-B4 and Vision Transformers, were trained to classify steatosis (S0-S1 vs. S2-S3) and fibrosis (F0-F1 vs. F2-F4), respectively, using 5-fold cross-validation. Performance was assessed and compared with expert radiologists.
resultsFor steatosis classification, our models achieved an AUROC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) in cross-validation and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.43-0.93) on the external test set. For fibrosis, AUROC reached 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.91) in cross-validation and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.00) on the external test set. On the temporally independent test set, performance was better with AUROCs of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.66-0.98) for steatosis and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.77-1.00) for fibrosis. The AI models consistently outperformed expert radiologists, whose interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58-0.65).
conclusionThis study demonstrates that deep learning models can accurately identify steatosis and fibrosis from ultrasound images across diverse populations and clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41284028What 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.