ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Automated detection of gallbladder stones using a deep learning algorithm on computed tomography scans.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a deep learning algorithm for automated gallstone detection on CT.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included randomly selected CT scans from January 2018 to June 2019: 493 gallstone-positive, 470 gallstone-negative, and 180 post-cholecystectomy scans according to the original report (reference standard). Deep learning models were trained on segmented gallbladders (452 scans) and gallstone bounding-box labels (400 scans), randomly selected and manually labeled. All models used 5-fold cross-validation. Gallstone characteristics were collected (e.g., quantity, size, conspicuity). Where available, ultrasound and MRI reports within six months of CT were reviewed for cholecystolithiasis. Diagnostic performance was evaluated on a test set of 90 scans (30 per category). Statistical analyses included Dice coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, and ROC analysis.
resultsNinety patients (mean age 64.9 ± 17.9 years; 46 women) were evaluated. The segmentation algorithm achieved a median Dice score of 94.4% (IQR 4.5%). The detection pipeline identified gallstone-positive scans with a sensitivity of 96.7% (95% CI: 90.2-100.0) and specificity of 83.3% (95% CI: 70.0-96.7). Sensitivity was highest for hyperdense (97.3%) and large stones (>10 mm, 97.1%) but lower for gaseous (71.4%), isodense (78.6%), and small stones (<5 mm, 88.9%). Cholecystectomy was correctly identified in 76.7% of cases. Gallstone presence correlated with larger gallbladder volumes (mean 42.8 mL ± 38.3 vs. 24.0 mL ± 20.7, p < 0.001). Ultrasound/MRI comparisons (available for 178 [18.5%] of CTs with a gallbladder) showed low false-positive (0.6%) and false-negative (4.5%) rates for CT.
conclusionThe algorithm detects gallstones in CT scans with high sensitivity, particularly for large, conspicuous stones.
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.