ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
The Clinical Utility of Three-Dimensional Liver Modelling: A Multicenter Survey.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pre-operative planning for complex liver surgery is constrained by 2D CT/MRI. Digital 3D liver models (3DL-RL) may improve decision-making, but multicenter evidence on decision-level effects and inter-surgeon variability is limited. A multicenter, case-based survey was conducted among 10 HPB surgeons from all five Norwegian centers. Nine anonymized cases were reviewed in two phases: CT/MRI only, then CT/MRI + 3DL-RL. Fifty-five responses were collected to assess plans, usefulness, and adoption. Agreement and paired comparisons used Krippendorff's α, Fleiss' κ, Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, paired t, and Wilcoxon tests. 3DL-RL was associated with a significant planning shift (Wilcoxon p = 0.006, r = 0.372). Tumor counts changed in 41/55 (75%), always upward; plans changed in 64% of those versus 25% when counts were unchanged. Frequent modifications included parenchyma-sparing strategies 11/55 (20.0%), switch between surgery and another modality 6/55 (10.9%), extended resection 4/55 (7.3%), and refinements 8/55 (14.5%). Overall inter-surgeon agreement on binary planning remained low (Krippendorff's α 0.207 CT/MRI vs 0.177 3DL-RL). Per-case anatomical agreement showed that α remains higher in the 3DL-RL group (0.664), with Cohen's d = 0.571. Across Norwegian HPB units, 3DL-RL meaningfully influences pre-operative planning, often enabling parenchyma-sparing or other targeted changes, while serving as a complementary MDT aid. Variability persists across surgeons, consistent with individualized, precision-oriented decision-making. Larger, prospective, outcome-linked studies and ML-assisted workflows are needed to confirm clinical and economic impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41749032What 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.