ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Deep learning-based segmentation and detection of focal liver lesions on multi-sequence non-contrast MRI.
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 evaluate the performance of a deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) model for the multi-sequence automated segmentation and detection of focal liver lesions (FLLs) on non-contrast MRI (NC-MRI).
methodsA total of 1010 NC-MRI were included as the training set, and 144 consecutive MRI were collected as the hold-out set. The publicly available LLDMMRI-2023 and CHAOS datasets were utilized for external validation. T1WI, fat-saturated T2WI (fsT2WI), and high-b-value DWI (DWI_High) were included. Radiologist annotations on individual sequences served as the reference standard. A two-stage sequential 3D V-Net was implemented for FLLs segmentation. Segmentation performance was assessed using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). A lesion was considered detected if the DSC between model-predicted mask and reference standard exceeded zero. Detection performance was evaluated using sensitivity at the lesion and patient level, and false-positive lesion per sequence. For verified sensitivity, a lesion on one sequence was considered a true positive if detected on any other sequence for the same patient. Subgroup analyses were performed according to lesion size. Lesions were first split using a 20 mm cutoff, then classified into four size groups: <10 mm, 10-20 mm, 20-40 mm, and ≥ 40 mm. Subgroup analyses comparing benign and malignant lesions were performed in the external validation set.
resultsMean DSC for FLLs segmentation were 0.535, 0.590 and 0.596 for the training, hold-out and external validation sets. Sensitivities in the hold-out set ranged from 0.794 to 0.882 across T1WI, fsT2WI, and DWI_High, with all verified sensitivities > 0.93. In the external validation set, sensitivities were 0.688 (0.640-0.732), 0.864 (0.833-0.891) and 0.918 (0.889-0.941), while verified sensitivities reached 0.978, 0.978 and 0.972, respectively. Per-sequence false positive lesions were 0.50, 1.94, 1.42 for the hold-out set and 0.60, 1.66, 0.90 for the external validation set. Patient-level sensitivity was 0.988 and 0.987 across the two datasets. In the external validation set, DWI_High showed a statistically significant difference in sensitivity between lesions in < 20 mm and ≥ 40 mm subgroups (p < 0.001). For fsT2WI, benign lesions achieved superior detection sensitivity, with significant differences in 10-20 mm (p < 0.001) and 20-40 mm subgroups (p < 0.05). For DWI_High, malignant lesions yielded higher sensitivity in < 10 mm subgroups (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe deep learning-based AI model enables automated segmentation and detection of FLLs on NC-MRI, with acceptable performance across different lesion sizes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42726132What 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.