ArticleEuropean radiology2026
APEX-NET: automated pancreatic evaluation network using early non-contrast CT.
Article in European radiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate APEX-NET for early diagnosis and severity stratification of acute pancreatitis (AP) using non-contrast CT (NCCT), by leveraging contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) feature learning. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis five-center retrospective and prospective study included 3383 patients, comprising AP and Non-AP (abdominal pain patients and healthy individuals) patients. APEX-NET was trained and evaluated to perform pancreas segmentation, AP diagnosis (AP vs Non-AP), and severity prediction (mild, moderately severe, or severe per the revised Atlanta classification) using 3 internal and 2 external cohorts. A feature mapping module was employed to derive simulated CECT features from NCCT based on paired NCCT-CECT feature learning. The model was further evaluated with subgroup analyses, and a reader study was conducted by comparing its performance with six radiologists of varying experiences. Evaluation metrics included the Dice similarity coefficient, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and accuracy.
resultsFor AP diagnosis, APEX-NET achieved AUCs of 0.949, 0.958, 0.981, and 0.955 in the validation, internal, and two external testing cohorts, respectively. For severity prediction, APEX-NET significantly outperformed the NCCT model (p < 0.05), with macro-average AUCs of 0.873 (validation) and 0.872 (internal testing). The advantage of APEX-NET had been demonstrated in almost all the age, gender, and etiology subgroups. In the reader study, APEX-NET performed comparably to senior radiologists and superior to junior radiologists (p < 0.05).
conclusionAPEX-NET enables accurate NCCT-based diagnosis and early severity stratification of AP, demonstrating strong potential for clinical integration to overcome the inherent delay of CECT-based assessment. KEY POINTS: Question The absence of an accurate method for predicting AP severity from early NCCT, the initial diagnostic scan, thus forgoing the critical intervention window. Findings Achieve accurate severity prediction for AP by incorporating contrast-enhanced feature learning. Demonstrate robust performance across diverse demographic groups, etiologies, and imaging parameters. Clinical relevance The APEX-NET, an integrated deep learning framework using NCCT, accelerated the diagnosis and severity stratification of AP, demonstrating performance comparable to senior radiologists and direct potential for clinical workflow integration by reducing reliance on delayed contrast-enhanced scans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377437What 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.