ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
Deep Learning Identification of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma on MR Imaging.
Article in Journal of computer assisted tomography. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the performance of various convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in identifying clear renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) on MRI and to compare them with radiologists using the clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) algorithm.
methodsA total of 480 CNN models were retrospectively trained using 1 or 3 (fusion) different types of MR images obtained from 310 patients with pathologically confirmed renal masses (cT1, ≤7 cm). MR images included T2-weighted (T2w), T1-weighted opposed-phase/in-phase (T1wOPIP), and corticomedullary phase (CMphase) contrast-enhanced MR acquisitions. To increase the robustness of classification, a 5-fold cross-validation was performed, and the averaged area under curve (AUC) values were compared among the CNN models. The best performing CNN models were compared with radiologists' performance using the ccLS algorithm.
resultsThe performance of CNN models in ccRCC classification was significantly influenced by the choice of models, the type of input images, and image size. The best CNN models for the diagnosis of ccRCC using T2w and all 3 types of images (fusion CNN models) achieved an AUC of 0.79 and 0.8, respectively. Combining these models using logistic regression produced a slightly higher AUC value of 0.83. Radiologists using the ccLS achieved an AUC value of 0.85, which was not statistically different than the T2w+fusion model ( P >0.05). Combining the T2w+fusion model and the ccLS achieved an AUC value of 0.86, which was not different than the AUC value using ccLS alone ( P >0.05).
conclusionsA CNN model integrating three different types of MR images demonstrated performance comparable to that of radiologists in the diagnosis of ccRCC.
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.