Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32582883›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2019

Automated CT and MRI Liver Segmentation and Biometry Using a Generalized Convolutional Neural Network.

Kang Wang, Adrija Mamidipalli, Tara Retson, Naeim Bahrami, Kyle Hasenstab, Kevin Blansit, Emily Bass, Timoteo Delgado, Guilherme Cunha, Michael S Middleton and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. CustomizedHeliyon · 2024
    Article
  20. Review

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kang WangArtificial Intelligence and Data Analytic Laboratory (AiDA lab), Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Adrija MamidipalliLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Tara RetsonArtificial Intelligence and Data Analytic Laboratory (AiDA lab), Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Naeim BahramiArtificial Intelligence and Data Analytic Laboratory (AiDA lab), Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Kyle HasenstabLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Kevin BlansitArtificial Intelligence and Data Analytic Laboratory (AiDA lab), Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Emily BassLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Timoteo DelgadoLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Guilherme CunhaLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Michael S MiddletonLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Rohit LoombaDepartment of Hepatology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92029.
Brent A Neuschwander-TetriSaint Louis University, School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, MO 63104.
Claude B SirlinLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
Albert HsiaoArtificial Intelligence and Data Analytic Laboratory (AiDA lab), Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego. La Jolla, CA 92092.
members of the NASH Clinical Research Network
University of California San Diego · USUniversity of Missouri–St. Louis · US

Funding

Non Alcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research NetworkU01DK061732 · NIDDK · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI Srinivasan Dasarathy · 2002 to 2026
$12.2M
Technical Validation of MRI Biomarkers of Liver FatR01DK088925 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI REEDER, SCOTT B., SIRLIN, CLAUDE B · 2010 to 2021
$7.1M
Traning Clinical Scientists in Radiological ImagingT32EB005970 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Eric Y Chang, Rebecca Ann Rakow-Penner · 2007 to 2026
$3.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB005970NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK088925NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK061732
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess feasibility of training a convolutional neural network (CNN) to automate liver segmentation across different imaging modalities and techniques used in clinical practice and apply this to enable automation of liver biometry.

methodsWe trained a 2D U-Net CNN for liver segmentation in two stages using 330 abdominal MRI and CT exams acquired at our institution. First, we trained the neural network with non-contrast multi-echo spoiled-gradient-echo (SGPR)images with 300 MRI exams to provide multiple signal-weightings. Then, we used transfer learning to generalize the CNN with additional images from 30 contrast-enhanced MRI and CT exams.We assessed the performance of the CNN using a distinct multi-institutional data set curated from multiple sources (n = 498 subjects). Segmentation accuracy was evaluated by computing Dice scores. Utilizing these segmentations, we computed liver volume from CT and T1-weighted (T1w) MRI exams, and estimated hepatic proton- density-fat-fraction (PDFF) from multi-echo T2*w MRI exams. We compared quantitative volumetry and PDFF estimates between automated and manual segmentation using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman statistics.

resultsDice scores were 0.94 ± 0.06 for CT (n = 230), 0.95 ± 0.03 (n = 100) for T1w MR, and 0.92 ± 0.05 for T2*w MR (n = 169). Liver volume measured by manual and automated segmentation agreed closely for CT (95% limit-of-agreement (LoA) = [-298 mL, 180 mL]) and T1w MR (LoA = [-358 mL, 180 mL]). Hepatic PDFF measured by the two segmentations also agreed closely (LoA = [-0.62%, 0.80%]).

conclusionsUtilizing a transfer-learning strategy, we have demonstrated the feasibility of a CNN to be generalized to perform liver segmentations across different imaging techniques and modalities. With further refinement and validation, CNNs may have broad applicability for multimodal liver volumetry and hepatic tissue characterization.

Identifiers

PMID32582883
PMCPMC7314107
OpenAlexW2922744444

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.