Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 21, 2022; 28(27): 3398-3409
Published online Jul 21, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3398
Published online Jul 21, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3398
Modality and task | Approach | Target disease: number of the case | Performance | Ref. |
Classifying different FLLs based on B-mode | ANN | Cyst: 29; hemangioma: 37; malignant tumor: 33 | Cyst vs hemangioma accuracy: 99.7%; cyst vs malignant tumor accuracy: 98.7%; hemangioma vs malignant tumor accuracy: 96.1% | [40] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on B-mode | CNN | Benign lesions: 300; malignant lesions: 296 | All lesion accuracy: 84%; uncertain set of lesion accuracy: 79% | [37] |
Classifying different FLLs based on B-mode | ANN (sparse autoencoder) | Normal liver: 16; cyst: 44; hemangioma: 18; HCC: 30 | overall accuracy: 97.2%; overall sensitivity: 98%; overall specificity: 95.7% | [41] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on B-mode | FSVM | training set; DS1: benign lesions: 132, malignant lesions: 68; DS2: malignant liver cancer: 50, hepatocellular adenoma: 150, hemangioma: 35, focal nodular hyperplasia: 145, lipoma: 70 | DS1: accuracy: 97%, sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 95.5%, AUC: 0.984; DS2: accuracy: 95.1%, sensitivity: 92.0%, specificity: 95.5%, AUC: 0.971 | [36] |
Classifying different FLLs based on B-mode | CNN | Non-tumorous liver: 258, hemangioma: 17, HCC: 6, cyst: 30, focal nodular hyperplasia: 8 | AUC for tumor detection: 0.935; AUC for tumor discrimination (mean): 0.916 | [42] |
Diagnosing HCC based on B-mode | CNN | Malignant tumor: 1786; benign tumor: 427 | AUC for EV: 0.924 | [38] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on B-mode | CNN | HCC: 6; cyst: 6600; hemangioma: 5374; focal fatty sparing: 5110; focal fatty infiltration: 934 | IV: overall sensitivity: 83.9%; overall specificity: 97.1%; HCC detection rate: 85.3%; EV: overall sensitivity: 84.9%; overall specificity: 97.1%; HCC detection rate: 78.3% | [39] |
Classifying different FLLs based on CEUS | ANN | hemangioma: 16; focal fatty liver: 23; HCC: 41; metastatic tumor: 32 (hypervascular: 20 hypovascular: 12) | Accuracy: 94.5%; sensitivity: 93.2%; specificity: 89.7% | [47] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on CEUS | Deep belief networks | HCC: 6; hemangioma: 10; liver abscess: 4; metastases: 3; focal fatty sparing: 3 | Accuracy: 83.4%; sensitivity: 83.3%; specificity: 87.5% | [59] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on CEUS | SVM | Benign tumor: 30; malignant tumor: 22 | Accuracy: 90.3%; sensitivity: 93.1%; specificity: 86.9% | [45] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on CEUS | SVM | Benign tumor, HCC or metastatic tumor: 98 | Benign vs malignant accuracy: 91.8%, sensitivity: 93.1%, specificity: 86.9%; benign vs HCC vs metastatic carcinoma: accuracy: 85.7%; sensitivity: 84.4%; specificity: 87.7% | [46] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on CEUS | Deep canonical correlation analysis + multiple kernel learning | Benign tumor: 46; malignant tumor: 47 | Accuracy: 90.4%; sensitivity: 93.6%; specificity: 86.9% | [43] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on CEUS | 3D-CNN | HCC: 2110; focal nodular hyperplasia: 2310 | Accuracy: 93.1%; sensitivity: 94.5%; specificity: 93.6% | [44] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on CEUS | Deep neural network | Focal nodular hyperplasia: 16; HCC: 30; hemangioma: 23; hypervascular metastasis: 11; hypovascular metastasis: 11 | Top accuracy: 88% | [48] |
Differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on CEUS | CNN | Development set: malignant tumor: 281, benign tumor: 82; testing set: malignant tumor: 164, benign tumor: 47 | Accuracy: 91.0%; sensitivity: 92.7%; specificity: 85.1%; AUC: 0.934 | [49] |
- Citation: Cao LL, Peng M, Xie X, Chen GQ, Huang SY, Wang JY, Jiang F, Cui XW, Dietrich CF. Artificial intelligence in liver ultrasound. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(27): 3398-3409
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i27/3398.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3398