ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Deep learning-based detection of acute pancreatitis on abdominal contrast-enhanced CT.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe developed and evaluated a deep learning (DL) model for image-based detection of acute pancreatitis (AP) on abdominal contrast-enhanced CT (CECT).
methodsA total of 552 patients from two university centers (January 2010-January 2026) were included. The internal dataset comprised 207 patients with clinically and radiologically confirmed AP (499 scans) and 250 control patients with suspected AP (368 scans). An independent external validation cohort included 95 patients. Convolutional neural network-based models were trained using monophasic and biphasic CECT data. The final model was evaluated on a 20% patient-level hold-out test set from the internal cohort and on the external cohort. Performance was assessed using the F1 score and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsA single-input multiphase model incorporating arterial and portal venous phase scans achieved the best performance, with ensembling applied for biphasic studies. On the internal hold-out test set (n = 116), the model achieved an F1 score of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.89) and an AUROC of 0.89 (0.82-0.95). Performance remained robust on external validation (n = 95), with an AUROC of 0.99 (0.96-1.00) and an F1 score of 0.92 (0.86-0.97).
conclusionDL enabled accurate CECT-based identification of AP in this retrospective multicenter cohort, with performance maintained in an independent external dataset. Prospective validation using broader and independently adjudicated clinical populations remains necessary. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The model showed promising performance for CECT-based acute pancreatitis detection but was not designed or tested as a triage system. KEY POINTS: Diagnostic uncertainty in acute pancreatitis often arises from nonspecific abdominal symptoms and inter-reader variability in CECT interpretation. The DL model achieved high internal accuracy (AUROC 0.89) and maintained robust performance in an independent external validation cohort (AUROC 0.99).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.