ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Deep learning and machine learning in image-based hepatocellular carcinoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection and management are essential in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) care. Artificial intelligence (AI) is enhancing the precision and efficiency of diagnostic imaging for liver tumor assessment.
objectiveThis study aimed to characterize the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms for detecting HCC via systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library in November 2024 to identify studies evaluating AI algorithms for detecting HCC. Diagnostic performance data from the included studies were pooled via meta-analysis and compared against human clinicians (11 studies). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on classification task (binary classification tasks (BCTs) vs. multi-class classification tasks (MCCTs)), validation type, algorithmic approach (deep learning (DL) vs. machine learning (ML)), and imaging modality (ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)).
resultsForty-one studies evaluating AI-based diagnostic models were included. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPC), and area under the curve (AUC) were 87% (95% CI 84-90%), 91% (95% CI 89-93%), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.96). In comparison, 11 studies assessing human clinicians yielded a pooled SEN, SPC, and AUC of 78% (95% CI 73-83%), 91% (95% CI 86-94%), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93). These findings indicated that AI algorithms were related to high diagnostic accuracy and exhibited numerically higher performance metrics than human clinicians. Among the encompassed studies, 31 addressed BCTs and ten addressed MCCTs. Subgroup analyses across validation type, algorithmic approach, and imaging modality consistently demonstrated high diagnostic performance for AI. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed overall and within subgroups, with no clear source identified.
conclusionsAI algorithms are associated with high diagnostic accuracy for image-based detection of HCC, potentially surpassing human performance. However, additional prospective investigations with rigorous external validation and larger sample sizes are still necessary to detect HCC in medical imaging (MI).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42377542What 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.