ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Fully automated multi-sequence detection and alignment of focal liver lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based segmentation and detection of focal liver lesions on multi-sequence non-contrast MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the performance of radiologists assisted by AI in detecting colorectal liver metastases on contrast-enhanced CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Article
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
objectivesTo validate an artificial intelligence (AI) method for fully automated detection and alignment of focal liver lesions (FLLs) in multi-sequence dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective patient data from three hospitals were included from February 2020 to August 2022. A multi-reader, multi-case analysis was conducted, using the AI-assisted senior radiologists' detection results as the reference. The performance of AI, radiologists, and AI-assisted radiologists in detecting FLLs was analyzed at the lesion and patient levels. The senior radiologists validated the AI detection results for the same lesion across the nine different DCE-MRI sequences. The subgroup analyses evaluated detection sensitivity based on lesion size (< 20 mm vs ≥ 20 mm) and lesion number (1, 2-5, and ≥ 6 lesions).
resultsA total of 477 patients (median age 59 years, IQR 48-68 years) were included. The AI correctly detected 1532 FLLs with sensitivities of 0.990 (95% CI: 0.984-0.994) and 0.997 (0.985-1.000) at the lesion and patient levels, respectively. Radiologists showed detection sensitivities of 0.607 (0.581-0.631) and 0.920 (0.886-0.943), respectively. The AI-assisted radiologists significantly improved detection sensitivity from 0.607 (0.581-0.631) to 0.718 (0.695-0.740) at the lesion level (p < 0.001) and achieved an accuracy of 0.904 (0.875-0.930) at the patient level. Across nine DCE-MRI sequences, 1395/1532 (91.1%) correctly detected lesions were correctly aligned. The AI performed well, with detection sensitivity consistently exceeding 0.982 in all subgroups of lesion size and number.
conclusionAI enables fully automated detection and alignment of FLLs in DCE-MRI across nine MRI sequences. KEY POINTS: Question Current manual reading of DCE-MRI to detect FLLs is time-consuming and error-prone. Findings The AI system outperformed radiologists in detecting FLLs and improved the sensitivity of radiologists while maintaining precise cross-sequence alignment. Clinical relevance AI can assist radiologists in improving FLLs detection on DCE-MRI, demonstrating high alignment capability across nine sequences. Since AI has exhibited strong robustness in detecting and displaying FLLs, it may serve as a valuable tool for radiologists in reading DCE-MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41175201What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.