SynthesisLa Radiologia medica2026
Computed tomography-based artificial intelligence for predicting preoperative microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in La Radiologia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT)-based artificial intelligence (AI) models versus radiologists for preoperative microvascular invasion (MVI) detection in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify studies published up to February 2025 focusing on the diagnostic accuracy of CT-based AI models for the preoperative detection of MVI in HCC, compared with the diagnostic performance of radiologists. A bivariate random-effects model was employed to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), all presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I
resultsOf 918 identified studies, 32 studies with 3,709 cases were included. For the internal validation set, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for detecting MVI in HCC were 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87), 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.86), and 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), respectively. Radiologists achieved a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.63-0.93), specificity of 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.81), and AUC of 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.84).
conclusionsCT-based AI may have the potential to outperform radiologists in predicting MVI in HCC. However, existing evidence is limited by study heterogeneity and limited number of the direct comparison between AI and radiologists. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to validate its clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41505041What 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.