You're viewing our updated article page. If you need more time to adjust, you can return to the old layout.

REVIEW article

Front. Oncol., 03 September 2024

Sec. Cancer Imaging and Image-directed Interventions

Volume 14 - 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1415859

Artificial intelligence techniques in liver cancer

  • 1. Department of Engineering, School of Technology, Reykjavık University, Reykjavík, Iceland

  • 2. Department of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, United States

  • 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, United States

Article metrics

View details

19

Citations

9k

Views

2,5k

Downloads

Abstract

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), the most common primary liver cancer, is a significant contributor to worldwide cancer-related deaths. Various medical imaging techniques, including computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound, play a crucial role in accurately evaluating HCC and formulating effective treatment plans. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have demonstrated potential in supporting physicians by providing more accurate and consistent medical diagnoses. Recent advancements have led to the development of AI-based multi-modal prediction systems. These systems integrate medical imaging with other modalities, such as electronic health record reports and clinical parameters, to enhance the accuracy of predicting biological characteristics and prognosis, including those associated with HCC. These multi-modal prediction systems pave the way for predicting the response to transarterial chemoembolization and microvascular invasion treatments and can assist clinicians in identifying the optimal patients with HCC who could benefit from interventional therapy. This paper provides an overview of the latest AI-based medical imaging models developed for diagnosing and predicting HCC. It also explores the challenges and potential future directions related to the clinical application of AI techniques.

1 Introduction

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC), the most common primary liver malignancy, is linked to high mortality rates and stands as a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide (1). Accurate diagnosis and staging of HCC are crucial for improving patient survival rates and treatment outcomes. However, early diagnosis of HCC presents a significant challenge, especially for individuals with chronic liver disease. A notable characteristic of liver cancer is its strong association with liver fibrosis, with over 80% of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) developing in fibrotic or cirrhotic livers (2). This indicates that liver fibrosis plays a vital role in the liver’s premalignant environment.

Medical imaging techniques, including Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and Ultrasound (US), play an essential role in the diagnosis and staging of HCC, supplementing clinical findings, biological markers, and blood tests. CT scans provide detailed cross-sectional images of the liver, aiding in the identification and characterization of tumors (3). MRI offers superior soft tissue contrast, making it invaluable for assessing the extent of liver cancer (4). US, a non-invasive and cost-effective imaging modality, can detect liver tumors by generating liver images using sound waves (5). However, each of these imaging methods has its limitations. For instance, CT scans expose patients to ionizing radiation, potentially heightening the risk of radiation-induced cancer. Moreover, CT scans can be expensive and less accessible in certain healthcare settings. While MRI can produce high-quality images, it can be time-consuming and may not be suitable for patients with claustrophobia or those with metal implants. US has limitations in image quality, particularly in patients with obesity or excessive intestinal gas. Recently, advanced MRI techniques, such as MR Elastography (MRE) and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, have been introduced for liver imaging. These techniques provide high-resolution images without the harmful effects of radiation (6). MRE measures the stiffness of liver tissue, which can assist in differentiating between benign and malignant liver tumors. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI offers dynamic imaging of the liver and can enhance the detection and characterization of HCC.

Diagnosing HCC poses significant challenges. These challenges arise from the prevalence of typical radiological features that are common to other liver tumors or benign conditions. Such similarities in imaging characteristics can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. As a result, patients with liver lesions exhibiting these typical features may require histological confirmation or rigorous monitoring to ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

In recent years, the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques in diagnosing HCC has been the subject of extensive research. These techniques have been explored for various purposes such as detecting and evaluating HCC, facilitating treatment, and predicting treatment response (713). Numerous studies have investigated the use of AI models in conjunction with different modalities, including electronic health record (EHR) reports, clinical parameters, biological markers, and blood test results, for diagnosing liver cancer (14, 15). AI techniques have emerged as powerful tools capable of extracting valuable insights from voluminous EHRs and developing multimodal AI methods. These methods provide a more comprehensive and accurate depiction of the liver’s internal structure and function.

While many researchers have shown interest in exploring the potential of AI techniques in liver cancer research, there remains a gap in comprehensively evaluating the implementation of single-modal and multi-modal AI techniques for diagnosing HCC. This study aims to bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive review of the most recently developed AI-based techniques that utilize both single and multi-modal data for diagnosing HCC. AI-based techniques hold the potential to enhance early diagnosis, improve diagnostic accuracy, and improve treatment outcomes for patients with HCC. This pivotal area of research could lead to significant advancements in liver cancer diagnosis and prediction.

2 Methodology and materials

This research explores the application of AI methodologies in diagnosing and prognosticating primary liver cancer, specifically HCC. The objective is to encapsulate the latest and most relevant discoveries in this rapidly evolving field.

A thorough literature review was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Semantic Scholar, IEEEXplore, and Web of Science, up until March 31, 2024. During this process, several key terms such as “artificial intelligence”, “deep learning”, “machine learning”, “liver cancer”, “hepatocellular carcinoma”, “multi-modal”, “medical imaging”, “US”, “CT”, and “MRI” were searched in the title and/or abstract or all field. References from relevant articles were examined to identify additional qualifying publications.

An expert review of the eligible literature was carried out, and the most informative and pertinent citations were chosen for inclusion. The studies selected were those that integrated AI techniques with medical imaging datasets, including US, CT, and MRI, in conjunction with Electronic Health Records (EHR) and clinical parameters. Studies that did not utilize medical imaging techniques or AI models specifically targeting primary liver cancer were excluded.

The search was confined to peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, dissertations, and book chapters published in English from January 2010 to March 2024. These publications were retrieved, screened, and reviewed by the authors. One researcher then undertook the data extraction, focusing on the methods and results of each study.

As depicted in Figure 1, our study selection process began with 1334 records. After removing 885 duplicates, we screened 450 records. The title and abstract screening led to the exclusion of 240 studies, leaving 210 for full-text review. Following a comprehensive evaluation, 177 articles (7, 16186) were deemed suitable for this study. We categorized the modalities into four groups: US (n = 34), CT (n = 95), MRI (n = 34), and multi-modal (n=19). The characteristics of the included studies are detailed in Tables 110.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Flowchart of study selection.

Table 1

Ref Year AI Model US Method Task Dataset AUC Accuracy Sensitivity Specificity
(17) 2010 FSVM B-mode US Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 200 images 0.984 0.97 1 0.955
(17) 2010 FSVM B-mode US Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 450 images 0.971 0.951 0.92 0.955
(18) 2011 Two-step neural network B-mode US Classify FLLs 111 images
(88 patients)
~ 0.864 ~ ~
(18) 2011 Two-step neural network B-mode US Detect FLLs 111 images
(88 patients)
~ 0.903 ~ ~
(7) 2014 NNE B-mode US Diagnosis of FLLs 108 patients ~ 0.95 ~ ~
(19) 2015 ANN B-mode US Diagnosis of FLLs 115 patients ~ >0.96 ~ ~
(20) 2017 ANN B-mode US Diagnosis of FLLs 110 images ~ 0.972 0.98 0.957
(21) 2018 SVM B-mode US Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 189 images
(94 patients)
~ 0.966 0.969 0.998
(22) 2019 Supervised DL B-mode US Detection and characterization
of FLLs as benign
and malignant
Training set:
367 images (367 patients),
Test set: 177 patients
Training: mean ACU:0.935 for detection,
mean ACU: 0.916 for characterization,
Test: mean ACU: 0.891 for detection
~ ~ ~
(23) 2020 CNN B-mode US Characterization of FLLSs as benign or
malignant
Training: 16500 images (1446
Patients),
Internal validation:
4125 images (369 patients),
External
validation: 3718 images (328
patients)
Training: mean ACU: 0.765~0.925
Internal validation:
mean ACU: 0.859~0.966
External validation:
mean ACU: 0.750~0.924
~ ~ ~
(24) 2020 CNN B-mode US Differentiate HCC and PAR GE9 dataset 0.91 0.8484 0.8679 0.8295
(24) 2020 CNN B-mode US Differentiate HCC and PAR GE7 dataset 0.95 0.91 0.9437 0.8838
(25) 2021 LR,
k-NN, MLP, RF, SVM
B-mode US Characterization of FLLSs as benign or
malignant
114 patients
Training: 91,
Test:23
Mean AUC: 0.737~0.816 Mean accuracy: 0.729~0.843 ~ ~
(26) 2021 DL B-mode US Diagnosis of FLLs 4309 images (3873 patients) 0.947 0.822 0.867 0.987
(27) 2021 CNN B-mode US Diagnosis of FLLs 40397 images (3847 patients) ~ 0.949 0.736 0.978
(28) 2021 CNN B-mode US Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 911 images (596 patients) 0.860 0.84 0.87 0.78
(29) 2021 CNN Endoscopic US Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 210685 images (256 patients) 0.861 (image), 0.904 (video) ~ 0.9(image), 1 (video) 0.71(image), 0.80(video)
(30) 2021 SVM B-mode US Differentiate HCC and ICC 226 patients,
Training: 149
Test: 38
External validation: 39
Training: 0.840~0.975,
Test: 0.711~0.936,
External validation: 0.730~0.874
Training: 0.7047~0.8926,
Test:: 0.7105~0.8684,
External validation: 0.6923
~0.8718
Training: 0.7742~0.9677,
Test: 0.7~0.9,
External validation: 0.6667~0.8887
Training: 0.6864
~0.8729,
Test: 0.7143
~0.8571,
External validation: 0.6667~0.8667
(31) 2021 SVM B-mode US Prediction of pathological grading of HCC 193 patients
Training: 128
Test: 32
External validation: 33
Training: 0.788~0.977,
Test: 0.72~0.874,
External validation: 0.77~0.849
Training: 0.7422~0.9219,
Test:: 0.6875~0.8438,
External validation: 0.6667
~0.8182
Training: 0.6471~0.902,
Test: 0.5714~0.8571,
External validation: 0.75
Training: 0.8052
~0.9351,
Test: 0.72
~0.84,
External validation: 0.619~0.8571
(32) 2022 CNN B-mode US Diagnosis of FLLs 70950 images ~ 0.934 0.675 0.96
(33) 2022 DL B-mode US Diagnosis of HCC 407 patients 0.936 0.864 0.96 0.769
(34) 2022 ResNet18 B-mode US Differentiate and predict HCC 513 patients 0.855(training), 0.709 (validation) ~ ~ ~
(35) 2023 CNN Quantitative US Diagnosis of hepatic steatosis 173 patients 0.97 ~ 0.90 0.91
(36) 2012 ANN CEUS Diagnosis of FLLs 112 patients ~ 0.9442 0.932 0.897
(37) 2014 DL CEUS Diagnosis of FLLs 22 patients ~ 0.8636 0.8333 0.8750
(38) 2015 SVM CEUS Diagnosis of FLLs 52 video sequences ~ 0.903 0.931 0.869
(39) 2017 SVM CEUS Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 98 patients 0.918 0.94 87.1
(40) 2018 DCCA -MKL CEUS Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 93 patients 0.953 0.9041 0.9356 0.8689
(41) 2018 ANN CEUS Differentiating benign from
malignant liver lesions
106 lesions 0.829~0.883 0.80~0.811
(42) 2019 3D CNN CEUS Classify aHCC and FNH 4420 images ~ 0.931 0.945 0.936
(43) 2020 SVM CEUS Differentiation between aHCC and FNH 257 images 0.944 ~ 0.9476 0.9362
(44) 2021 DL CEUS Classify five types of FLLs 273 video files
(91 patients)
~ 0.88 ~ ~
(45) 2021 CNN CEUS Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 363 patients 0.934 0.91 0.927 0.851
(46) 2021 SVM CEUS Preoperative histological grading 235 HCC lesions:
65 high grade and 170 low grade
lesions
0.665~0.785 ~ ~ ~
(47) 2022 ML CEUS Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 87 images
(72 patients)
0.840 0.84 0.76 0.92
(48) 2024 CNN-LSTM CEUS Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 440 patients 0.91 ~ 0.95 0.7
(48) 2024 3D-CNN CEUS Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 440 patients 0.88 ~ 0.96 0.55
(48) 2024 ML-TIC CEUS Classify benign and malignant liver lesions 440 patients 0.78 ~ 0.96 0.21

AI-based US approaches for HCC diagnosis.

aHCC, a typical HCC; AUC, area under the curve; CNN, convolutional neural network; DCCA –MKL, deep canonical correlation analysis and multiple kernel learning; DL, deep learning; FNH, focal nodular hyperplasia; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; iANN, improved artificial neural network; ML- TIC, machine learning based time-intensity curve; NNE, neural network ensemble; PAR, cirrhotic parenchyma; SVM, support vector machine; US, ultrasound.

Table 2

Ref Year AI Model Imaging method Task Dataset Results
(49) 2015 Model based Shape Constraints and Deformable Graph Cut CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb VOE=9.15
(49) 2015 Model based Shape Constraints and Deformable Graph Cut CT Liver segmentation Sliver07 VOE=62.4
(53) 2017 CNN + MRFs CT Liver segmentation Hospital dataset Dice= 0.83
(54) 2017 U-Net CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.923,
VOE=14.21
(55) 2018 Faster R-CNN CT Liver segmentation SLIVER07 VOE = 5.06,VD = 0.09
(55) 2018 Faster R-CNN CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb VOE = 0.0867, VD = 0.57
(56) 2018 V-net CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.874, VOE=21.85
(56) 2018 V-net CT Liver segmentation SLIVER07 Dice=0.872, VOE=21.15
(57) 2018 H Dense UNet CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.930, VOE=12.87
(57) 2018 H Dense UNet CT Liver segmentation SLIVER07 Dice=0.927, VOE=13.29
(58) 2018 U-net+ GAN CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice= 0.94
(59) 2019 Channel-UNet CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice= 0.984
(60) 2020 BS U-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.961
(61) 2020 RA U-Net CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice= 0.830,
VOE = 4.5
(61) 2020 RA U-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.961,
VOE = 7.4
(62) 2020 Multi-Layer U-Net CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice = 0.9645
(62) 2020 Multi-Layer U-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice = 0.9638
(63) 2020 3DResUNet CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice = 0.958
(64) 2020 CNN CT Liver segmentation Hospital dataset Dice = 0.949
(65) 2020 BATA-Unet CT Liver segmentation MICCAI Dice=0.9788,
VOE=4.5,
RVD=0.04%,
ASD=0.05mm,
MSD=0.08mm
(65) 2020 BATA-Unet CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCAD Dice=0.9671, VOE=0.115,
RVD=0.08%, ASD=0.14mm, MSD=0.16mm
(66) 2021 Multi Res U-Net CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice= 0.88
(67) 2021 DenseXNet CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice= 0.968
(67) 2021 DenseXNet CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.9668
(68) 2021 T3scGAN CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.961
(69) 2021 2.5D light-weight nnU-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.962
(70) 2021 2.5D U-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.928
(71) 2021 2.5D P U-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.962
(72) 2021 DFS U-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.949
(73) 2021 MSN-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.942
(74) 2021 U-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice=0.9693 for training,
Dice=0.9077 for validation,
Dice=0.9084 for testing
(75) 2022 Casecade DL CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice= 0.9564, VOE=0.0828
(76) 2022 PADLLS CT Liver segmentation SLIVER07 Dice= 0.957, VOE=0.0814
(76) 2022 PADLLS CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice= 0.965,
VOE=0.0666
(77) 2022 DALU-Net CT Liver segmentation Custom Dice=0.899
(78) 2022 nnU-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS-IRCAD global Dice=0.974,
(79) 2023 SLIC-DGN CT Liver segmentation LiTS17 Acc=0.991, Dice=0.911,
Mean IoU=0.908,
Sen= 0.994, Recall=0.994,
Prec=0.912
(80) 2023 DD-UDA multi-phase CT Liver segmentation LiTS & MPCT-FLLs IoU=0.823 (PV),
IoU=0.811 (ART),
IoU=0.800 (NC)
(81) 2023 RMAU-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice=0.9552
(81) 2023 RMAU-Net CT Liver segmentation 3D-IRCABb Dice=0.9697
(82) 2023 AIM-Unet CT Liver segmentation CHAOS Dice=0.9786, Jac=0.9610
(82) 2023 AIM-Unet PET/CT Liver segmentation Clinical data Dice=0.9738, Jac=0.9495
(83) 2023 MAD-UNet CT Liver segmentation LiTS17 Dice=0.9727
(83) 2023 MAD-UNet CT Liver segmentation Sliver07 Dice=0.9752
(83) 2023 MAD-UNet CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.9691
(84) 2023 Eres-UNet++ CT Liver segmentation LiTS Acc=0.958, IoU=0.921,
F1-Score=0.959, Recall=0.96
(85) 2023 Dual-path Network with Swin Transformer Encoding CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice=0.962
(86) 2024 Spider-UNet CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.459
(86) 2024 3D UNet CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.54
(86) 2024 V-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.57
(86) 2024 FCN-RNN CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.58
(86) 2024 LSTM-Unet CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice=0.59
(86) 2024 3DRes-Unet CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.62
(86) 2024 MP-UNet CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.625
(86) 2024 3D VGN CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.649
(86) 2024 UMCT CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.65
(86) 2024 nnU-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.675
(86) 2024 3D-GCCN CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.70
(86) 2024 Improved V-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS17& 2018 MICCAI Dice= 0.7253
(87) 2024 SADSNet CT Liver segmentation LITS Dice= 0.9703
(87) 2024 SADSNet CT Liver segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice= 0.9611
(87) 2024 SADSNet CT Liver segmentation SLIVER Dice= 0.9740
(88) 2024 SD-Net CT Liver segmentation LiTS Dice>0.94
(89) 2024 LRENet CT Liver segmentation LiTS, 3Dircadb01 & Clinical data Acc=0.9769,
IoU=0.8608,
Dice=0.9252
(49) 2015 CNN phase
enhanced CT
Liver tumor segmentation 26 images Prec=0.867
(90) 2016 End-to-end 3D FCN with CRF CT Liver tumor segmentation SLIVER07 VOE =5.42, VD =1.75
(51) 2017 FCN CT Liver tumor segmentation 2 databases
Training: 3809 images
VOE =15.6~38.2, 8.1~19.1
for each dataset
(50) 2017 CNN CT Liver tumor detection and segmentation 246 tumors
(97 new tumors)
True positive rate =0.72~0.86 for detection
(57) 2018 H Dense UNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb & LiTS Dice =0.824
(91) 2018 FCN CT Liver tumor segmentation Clinical data True positive rate=0.964
(92) 2018 ResNet based SSD CT Liver tumor segmentation Clinical data Prec =0.533
(93) 2019 Nested U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Pixel accuracy =0.9997,
IoU =0.7917, Rand Index=0.9106
(59) 2019 Channel-UNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice =0.940
(94) 2019 3D Residual U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation 109 volumes Dice =0.69,
Sen= 0.682
(60) 2020 BS U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice =0.569
(61) 2020 RA U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice =0.977,
VOE =25.5
(61) 2020 RA U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice =0.595, VOE =38.9
(62) 2020 Multi-Layer U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice =0.7334
(62) 2020 Multi-Layer U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice =0.7369
(95) 2020 SegNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice =0.9522
(96) 2020 Modified SegNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb True positive rate= 0.988
(67) 2021 DenseXNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice =0.764
(67) 2021 DenseXNet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice =0.6911
(70) 2021 2.5D U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice =0.672
(71) 2021 2.5D P U-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice =0.735
(68) 2021 CGBS-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation Hospital dataset Dice =0.9641
(45) 2022 TransNUNet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice =0.9793 (training), Dice=0.9196 (testing)
(45) 2022 TransUNet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.9456 (training), Dice=0.8713 (testing)
(45) 2022 UNet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.8619 (training), Dice=0.7185 (testing)
(45) 2022 UNet3+ CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.9531 (training), Dice=0.8261 (testing)
(97) 2023 MANet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.64, IoU =0.5227,
Acc =0.9947, Sen =0.624,
Spec =0.999,VOE =0.4773
(97) 2023 MANet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.8145, IoU =0.7084,
Acc =0.9947, Sen =0.8723,
Spec =0.997, VOE =29.15
(79) 2023 SLIC-DGN CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS17 Dice=0.9, IoU =0.892,
Acc =0.987, Sen =0.979,
Spec =0.887
(98) 2023 Three-path structure with MSFF, MFF, EI, and EG CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS17 Dice=0.8555, IoU =0.9045,
Acc =0.9979, Sen =0.8682,
Spec =0.9993
(99) 2023 En–DeNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.8481, Acc =0.8808,
Prec =0.8613
(99) 2023 En–DeNet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.8594, Acc =0.9217,
Prec =0.894
(84) 2023 Eres-UNet++ CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS IoU =0.84, Acc =0.893,
F1 score =0.913
(85) 2023 Dual-path Network with Swin Transformer Encoding CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.681
(100) 2023 Enhanced M-RCNN CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS17 Dice=0.957, VOE =9.5
(100) 2023 Enhanced M-RCNN CT Liver tumor segmentation Sliver07 Dice=0.9731, VOE =5.37
(82) 2023 AIM-Unet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.756
(82) 2023 AIM-Unet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.655
(81) 2023 RMAU-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.7616
(81) 2023 RMAU-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.8307
(87) 2024 SADSNet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.8781
(87) 2024 SADSNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3DIRCADb Dice=0.8750
(101) 2024 SEU2-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation PUFH Dice=0.9504, IoU =0.9055,
Acc =0.997
(101) 2024 SEU2-Net CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS Dice=0.9093, IoU =0.8337,
Acc =0.9986
(89) 2024 LRENet CT Liver tumor segmentation LiTS, 3Dircadb01, Clinical data Dice=0.7312, IoU =0.5763,
Acc =0.7548
(102) 2024 DS-HPSNet CT Liver tumor segmentation 3Dircadb1 Dice=0.815, Sen =0.807,
Prec =0.83
(102) 2024 DS-HPSNet CT Liver tumor segmentation MSD Dice=0.749, Sen =0.726,
Prec =0.762
(64) 2020 CNN CECT Liver segmentation Clinical data Dice= 0.961
(103) 2022 CNN CECT Liver tumor segmentation 58 patients Dice=0.987,
Prec =0.967
(104) 2023 3D UNet CECT Liver segmentation 170 patients Best Dice=0.95
(105) 2023 U-net CECT Liver segmentation 259 patients Dice=0.96
(105) 2023 U-net CECT Liver tumor segmentation 259 patients Dice=0.86

AI-driven CT models for segmentation of liver and liver tumors.

3DIRCADb, 3D Image Reconstruction for Comparison of Algorithm Database; 3DIRCADb01, 3D Image Rebuilding for Comparison of Algorithms Database; Acc, accuracy; AUC, area under the curve; CECT, Contrast-enhanced CT; DD-UDA, dual discriminator-based unsupervised domain adaptation; DS-HPSNet: Dual-stream Hepatic Portal Vein segmentation Network; EG, edge-guiding; EI, edge-inspiring; En–DeNet, Encoder–Decoder Network; FCN, fully convolutional network; CNN, convolutional neural networks; HFSNet, hierarchical fusion strategy of deep learning networks; IoU, intersection over union; LiTS, liver tumor segmentation; LiTS17, liver tumor segmentation 2017; LRENet, location-related enhancement network; MAD-UNet, multi-scale attention and deep supervision-based 3D UNet; MCC, Matthews’s correlation coefficient; MFF, multi-channel feature fusion; MRFs, Markov random fields; MSD, medical segmentation decathlon hepatic vessel segmentation dataset; MSFF, multi-scale selective feature fusion; PADLLS, pipeline for automated deep learning liver segmentation; Prec, precision; RD DLIR-H, high-strength deep learning image reconstruction; RD DLIR-M, medium-strength deep learning image reconstruction; RMAU-Net, residual multi-scale attention U-Net; VOE, Volume overlap error; SD-Net, semi-supervised double-cooperative network; Sen, sensitivity; SLIC-DGN, SLIC-based deep graph network; Spec, specificity; VOE, volume overlap error.

Table 3

Ref Year AI Model Tasks Imaging method Dataset Results
(110) 2018 CNN Characterization of liver lesions:
classification in five categories, and
malignant (HCC and non-HCC liver cancers) vs indeterminate and benign
lesions (hemangiomas and cysts)
Three-phase CT Training: 460
patients
Testing: 100
patients
Acc =0.84, AUC =0.92
Classification:
Training: Median Acc=0.95~0.97,
Testing: Median Acc=0.48−0.84,
Sen=0.11~1,
Malignant vs the rest:
Testing: Median AUC=0.61~0.92
(111) 2018 Mics-CNN Detect FLLs Multi-phase CT 89 patients F1 score =0.82
(91) 2018 FCN Detect liver metastases CT 20 patients Acc =0.946
(106) 2019 ML Distinguish HCC from non-HCC lesions in cirrhotic patients CT 13920 images (178 patients) AUC =0.81 for training set,
AUC=0.66 for external validation set
(107) 2019 SVM,
k-NN,
Ensemble classifier
Characterization of FLLs as malignant or
benign
CT 179 patients:
98 benign and 81
malignant lesions
Acc=0.966~0.983,
Spec=0.9423~0.9703 for HCC
(111) 2019 CNN Characterization of FLLs (five
categories)
CT 89 patients Sen=0.79~1
(52) 2019 DNN Classify HEM, HCC and MET CT 225 images Acc =0.9939, Sen=1, Spec=0.9909
(108) 2020 ANN,
SVM,
CNN
Classification of nodular, diffuse and massive HCC CT 165 images: 46
diffuse tumors, 43
nodular tumors
And 76 massive
tumors
Average AUC=0.957~0.990,
Average Acc=0.926~0.984
(average values for
all three models)
(109) 2020 MP-CDN
(3 models)
Detect HCC from other FLLs Multi-phase CT 342 patients with
449 lesions (194
HCC),
Training set: 359
lesions
Test set: 90 lesions
Acc=0.811~0.856,
AUC=0.862~0.925,
Sen=0.744~0.923,
Spec=0.725~0.941
(113) 2020 CNN,
SVM
Differentiation between HCC and ICC Multi-phase CT 187 HCC and 70 ICC lesions Acc =0.88, TPR=0.9518 for HCC,
TPR=0.6944 for ICC
(25) 2020 Radiomics
eXtreme Gradient
Boosting
Grading of HCC CT Training: 237
Patients,
Testing: 60 patients
Training:
AUC=0.6915~0.9964,Acc=0. 6118~0.9705,
Sen=0.6067~0.9551, Spec=0.5135~0.8041,
Testing:
AUC=0.6128~0.8014,
Acc=0.483~0.7, Sen=0.4348~0.6522, Spec=0.3784~0.8108
(116) 2020 CNN Detect liver cancer in hepatitis patients CT NHIRD Acc =0.98, Sen =0.783, Spec =0.990,
Prec =0.793, F1 score =0.788,
MCC =0.777, AUC =0.886
(116) 2020 SVM Detect liver cancer in hepatitis patients CT NHIRD Acc =0.961,Sen =0.343,Spec =0.987,
Prec =0.533, F1 score =0.417,
MCC =0.409, AUC =0.665
(116) 2020 RNN Detect liver cancer in hepatitis patients CT NHIRD Acc =0.945,Sen =0.357,Spec =0.969,
Prec =0.329, F1 score =0.342,
MCC =0.314, AUC =0.945
(116) 2020 LSTM Detect liver cancer in hepatitis patients CT NHIRD Acc =0.936, Sen =0.349,
Spec =0.967, Prec =0.353,
F1 score =0.351, MCC =0.317,
AUC =0.936
(116) 2020 GRU Detect liver cancer in hepatitis patients CT NHIRD Acc =0.960, Sen =0.529,
Spec =0.978, Prec =0.500,
F1 score =0.514, MCC =0.493,
AUC =0.960
(112) 2021 multi-modality and multi-scale CNN Characterization of FLLs: malignant (HCC,
ICC and metastasis) versus
benign lesions (cyst, hemangioma, and FNH),
classification of FLLs (Six-class)
CT 616 FLLs Detection: Average Prec=0.828,
Classification:
Binary classification:
Acc=0.825, AUC=0.921,
Sen =0.766~0.884, Spec=0.766~0.884,
Six-class classification:
Acc=0.734, AUC=0.766~0.983,
Sen =0.466~0.931, Spec=0.919~0.986
(117) 2021 HCCNet Detect HCC CT 7512 patients,
Internal test: 385,
External test: 556
Internal testing:
Acc =0.81,
Sen =0.784,
Spec =0.844,
F1 score =0.824,
External testing:
Acc =0.813,
Sen =0.894,
Spec =0.74,
F1 score =0.819
(118) 2021 STIC Classify HCC and ICC CT 723 patients Acc =0.862, AUC =0.893
(118) 2021 STIC Detect malignant hepatic tumors CT 723 patients Acc =0.726
(119) 2021 MDL-CNN Detect HCC, hepatic cysts, MET, HEM CT 4212 images Dice =0.957
(119) 2021 MDL-CNN Classify HCC, hepatic cysts, MET, HEM CT 4212 images Dice =0.9878
(120) 2021 multi-scale CNN Detect hepatic cysts,
HEM, MET
CT 1290 images Acc =0.873
(112) 2021 multi-modality and multi-scale CNN Detect FLLs, including HCC, ICC, MET, hepatic cysts, HEM, FNH CT 616 images Prec =0.828,
F1 score =0.878
(112) 2021 multi-modality and multi-scale CNN Classify FLLs
(Binary)
CT 616 images Acc =0.825
(112) 2021 multi-modality and multi-scale CNN Classify FLLs
(Six-class)
CT 616 images Acc =0.734
(114) 2021 ML-EM Detection and
classification of malignant
liver lesions (HCC and secondary liver lesions)
CT 1638 images Detection:
Acc =0.9839~1, AUC=0.99−1.00
Classification:
Acc =0.7638~0.8701, AUC=0.77~0.99
(121) 2021 Mask R-CNN Detect primary hepatic malignancies in HCC patients CT 1350 images (1320 patients) Sen =0.848
(122) 2021 CNN Diferentiating ICC from HCC Three-phase CT 617 patients Acc =0.61, Sen =0.75,
Spec =0.88, AUC =0.87
(122) 2021 CNN Diferentiating pHCC
from mHCC
Three-phase CT 617 patients Acc =0.61, Sen =0.62,
Spec =0.68, AUC =0.68
(123) 2022 SVM Classify HCC, MET, HHs CT 452 patients Acc =0.88
(124) 2022 Googlenet Detect and classify FLLs CT 3D-IRCADb01 Acc =0.93,
F1 score =0.9255, Dice =0.64
(124) 2022 Unet Detect and classify FLLs CT 3D-IRCADb01 Acc =0.9865,
F1 score =0.9875, Dice =0.83
(124) 2022 Dense 3D Detect and classify FLLs CT 3D-IRCADb01 Acc =0.89, Dice =0.94
(124) 2022 Dense-Net Detect and classify FLLs CT 3D-IRCADb01 Acc =0.92, F1 score =0.93
(124) 2022 SegNet VGG-16 Detect and classify FLLs CT 3D-IRCADb01 Acc =0.86
(124) 2022 GMM Detect and classify FLLs CT 3D-IRCADb01 Acc =0.9538
(124) 2022 SVM +RF Detect and classify FLLs CT 3D-IRCADb01 Acc =0.91
(125) 2023 RD DLIR-M Detect FLLs CT 296 patients Acc =0.8741, Sen =0.749, Spec =0.579
(125) 2023 RD DLIR-H Detect FLLs CT 296 patients Acc =0.7926, Sen =0.625,Spec =0.417
(126) 2023 ML Detect hepatic CT LI-RADS2018 Acc =0.701, Sen =0.67,Spec =0.91
(127) 2023 DL-CB Detect FLLs CT 68 patients Acc =0.733
(127) 2023 DL-CB Detect HCC CT 68 patients Acc =0.704
(115) 2023 Modified Unet-60 Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.9861, Sen =0.9722, Spec =1,
Dice =0.9859
(115) 2023 AdaBoost M1 Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.9072, Sen =0.9247, Spec =0.8797
(115) 2023 SVM Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.9517, Sen =0.9576, Spec =0.9422
(115) 2023 KNN Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.9387, Sen =0.9531, Spec =0.9256
(115) 2023 Naïve Bayes Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.9194, Sen =0.9365, Spec =0.8991
(115) 2023 Random forest Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.9486, Sen =0.9538, Spec =0.9388
(115) 2023 DNN Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.9838, Sen =0.9909, Spec =1
(115) 2023 ANN Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.8889, Sen =0.8288,Spec =0.9523
(115) 2023 MLP Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.8915, Sen =0.8801,Spec =0.9038,
Dice =0.8905
(115) 2023 CNN Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.88
(115) 2023 CNN Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.96
(115) 2023 CNN Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.8958
(115) 2023 CNN Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.869
(115) 2023 KNN, SVM, RF Detect and classify FLLs CT 3Dircadb Acc =0.966
(128) 2024 HFS-Net Detect HCC CT 595 patients Sen =0.843, Prec =0.755,
F1 score =0.796, Dice =0.828
(129) 2004 SVM Detect hypodense hepatic lesions CECT 56 images
(51 patients)
Sen =0.90
(129) 2004 SVM Classify hypodense hepatic lesions CECT 56 images
(51 patients)
Sen =0.95
(130) 2019 CNN Classify FNH and HCA CECT 98 patients AUC =0.824

AI-based CT models for diagnosing HCC.

3DIRCADb, 3D image reconstruction for comparison of algorithm database; Acc, accuracy; ANN, artificial neural network; AUC,area under the curve; CNN, convolutional neural networks; DCNN, deep convolutional neural networks; DL-CB, deep-learning-based contrast-boosting; DNN, deep neural network; FCN, fully convolutional network; FNH, focal nodular hyperplasia; GRU, gated recurrent unit; HCA, hepatocellular adenoma; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HEM, hemangioma; HFS-Net, hierarchical fusion strategy of deep learning networks; ICC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; KNN, K-nearest neighbors KNN; LI-RADS2018, liver imaging reporting and data system version 2018; LSTM, long short-term memory; MCC, Matthews’s correlation coefficient; MDL-CNN, multi-channel deep learning CNN; MET, metastatic carcinoma; ML, machine learning; ML-EM, multi-level ensemble model; NHIRD, national health insurance research database; Prec,precision; RD DLIR-H, high-strength deep learning image reconstruction; RD DLIR-M, medium-strength deep learning image reconstruction; RNN, recurrent neural network; Sen, sensitivity; Spec, specificity; SVM, support vector machine.

Table 4

Ref Year AI Model Tasks Imaging modality Dataset Internal validation Results External validation Results
(133) 2021 Multi-task DL Predict future MVI in HCC CT 366 patients,
Training:281,
Testing: 85
AUC=0.836 ~
(134) 2021 TwinLiverNet Predict TACE in HCC patients CT 97 images
(92 patients)
Acc=0.825,
Sen=0.817,
Spec=0.833
~
(134) 2021 LiverNet Predict TACE in HCC patients CT 97 images
(92 patients)
Acc=0.741,
Sen=0.717,
Spec=0.767
~
(134) 2021 Baseline Net
(no augm)
Predict TACE in HCC patients CT 97 images
(92 patients)
Acc=0.433,
Sen=0.40,
Spec=0.467
~
(134) 2021 Baseline Net (data augm) Predict TACE in HCC patients CT 97 images
(92 patients)
Acc=0.567,
Sen=0.533,
Spec=0.60
~
(131) 2021 cML+DL Predict TACE in HCC patients CT 310 patients AUC=0.994 ~
(72) 2021 ResNet-18
(AP)
Predict MVI in HCC patients CT 309 patients,
Training:216,
Validation: 93,
External testing: 164
Acc=0.68,
Sen=0.96,
Spec=0.56,
AUC=0.82
Acc=0.66,
Sen=0.8,
Spec=0.62, AUC=0.75
(72) 2021 ResNet-18
(AP +CF)
Predict MVI in HCC patients CT 309 patients,
Training:216,
Validation: 93,
External testing: 164
Acc=0.72,
Sen=0.96,
Spec=0.62,
AUC=0.85
Acc=0.71,
Sen=0.82, Spec=0.67, AUC=0.78
(72) 2021 SVM (CF) Predict MVI in HCC patients CT 309 patients,
Training:216,
Validation: 93,
External testing: 164
Acc=0.77,
Sen=0.71,
Spec=0.8,
AUC=0.78
Acc=0.7,
Sen=0.77, Spec=0.67, AUC=0.76
(72) 2021 SVM (AP + CF) Predict MVI in HCC patients CT 309 patients,
Training:216, Validation: 93,
External testing: 164
Acc=0.6,
Sen=0.93,
Spec=0.46,
AUC=0.7
Acc=0.57,
Sen=0.9,
Spec=0.47, AUC=0.68
(81) 2021 3D-CNN Predict MVI in HCC patients CT 405 patients,
Training:324,
Validation:81
Acc=0.852,
Sen=0.932,
Spec=0.757,
AUC=0.906,
F1 score=0.872
~
(135) 2019 ML Predict HCC recurrence postresection CECT 470 patients, Training:210,
Internal testing: 107;
External testing: 153
Pre: AUC=0.84,
Post: AUC=0.859
Pre: AUC=0.803,
Post: AUC=0.813
(136) 2020 ML Predict pathological grade of HCC CECT 297 patients, training:237,
test:60
Acc=0.5333, Sen=0.6522, Spec=0.4595, AUC=0.6698 ~
(137) 2021 CDLM Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 306 patients, validation:115 Acc=0.73,
Sen=0.574,
Spec=0.869,
AUC=0.736
~
(132) 2022 DL based clinical-radiological model Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 283 patients,
Training:198,
Testing: 85
Acc=0.9647,
Sen=0.9091, Spec=0.9730,
Prec=0.894,
F1 score=0.870,
AUC=0.909
~
(132) 2022 Xception Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 283 patients,
Training:198,
Testing: 85
Acc=0.7059,
Sen=0.6364, Spec=0.7162,
Prec=0.432,
F1 score=0.359,
AUC=0.759
~
(132) 2022 VGG16 Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 283 patients,
Training:198,
Testing: 85
Acc=0.7294,
Sen=0.5455, Spec=0.7568,
Prec=0.524,
F1 score=0.343, AUC=0.639
~
(132) 2022 VGG19 Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 283 patients,
Training:198,
Testing: 85
Acc=0.6824,
Sen=0.5455, Spec=0.7027,
Prec=0.460,
F1 score=0.308, AUC=0.705
~
(132) 2022 ResNet50 Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 283 patients,
Training:198,
Testing: 85
Acc=0.8118,
Sen=0.7273, Spec=0.8243,
Prec=0.565,
F1 score=0.5, AUC=0.880
~
(132) 2022 InceptionV3 Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 283 patients,
Training:198,
Testing: 85
Acc=0.7529,
Sen=0.8182, Spec=0.7432,
Prec=0.289,
F1 score=0.462, AUC=0.724
~
(132) 2022 InceptionResNetV2 Predict MVI in HCC patients CECT 283 patients,
Training:198,
Testing:85
Acc=0.7294,
Sen=0.5455, Spec=0.7568,
Prec=0.339,
F1 score=0.343, AUC=0.717
~
(138) 2023 DL-based multi-input CNN Predict recurrence risk for recurrence-free survival in HCC patients Muti-phase CT 218 patients, Training:152, Internal validation:66,
External validation:74
C-index=0.627 C-index=0.630

AI-based CT models for HCC prognostication.

AP, arterial phase; CF, clinical factors; C-index, concordance index; cML, conventional machine learning; Multi-modal DNN, multi-modal deep neural network; MVI, microvascular invasion; nnU-Net, 3D neural network; OS, overall survival; TACE, trans-arterial chemoembolization.

Table 5

Ref Year AI Model Task Imaging method Dataset (training/test) Results
(141) 2012 Iterative watershed algorithm and ANN Liver segmentation MRI 115 images Average Acc=0.94
(142) 2016 3D fast
marching algorithm and neural network
Liver tumor segmentation T1-weighted MRI Medic Medical Center (10 patients), TCIA (6 patients) mean volumetric
overlap error=0.2743,
mean percentage volume error=0.1573,
Average surface distance (mm)=0.58,
RMS surface distance (mm)=1.20,
Maximal surface distance (mm)=6.29
(143) 2018 FCNN Liver axial segmentation Late-Phase MRI Total: 90 patients,
Training: 57,
Validation: 5,
Testing: 20
Dice=0.946 ± 0.018,
RVE(%)=4.20 ± 3.34
(143) 2018 FCNN Liver OrthoMean segmentation Late-Phase MRI Total: 90 patients,
Training: 57,
Validation:5,
Testing: 20
Dice= 0.951 ± 0.018,
RVE(%)=4.20 ± 3.65
(143) 2018 FCNN Tumor axial segmentation Late-Phase MRI Total: 90 patients,
Training set: 57,
Validation set: 5,
Testing: 20
Dice=0.627 ± 0.241,
RVE(%)=48.9 ± 53.3
(143) 2018 FCNN Tumor OrthoMean segmentation Late-Phase MRI Total: 90 patients,
Training: 57,
Validation: 5,
Testing: 20
Dice=0.647 ± 0.210,
RVE(%)=35.9 ± 28.2
(144) 2019 2D U-net CNN Liver segmentation T1-weighted MRI 498 patients Dice=0.95 ± 0.03
(144) 2019 2D U-net CNN Liver segmentation T2-weighted MRI 498 patients Dice=0.92 ± 0.05
(145) 2020 Radiomics-guided DUN-GAN Liver lesion segmentation multi-phase non-contrast MRI 250 patients Dice=0.9347
(146) 2020 4D
k-means clustering estimation
Liver segmentation multi-phase MRI Total: 25 datasets,
Training: 10,
Validation:15
HH=1.76mm,
Dice=0.95,
Volume Error =3.18%
(147) 2020 Wide U-Net CNN Liver Segmentation T2-weighted MRI Total: 31 patients average Dice =0.86 (Liver Vasculature)
(140) 2021 EIS-Net Liver segmentation T1-weighted MRI 219 patients,
Training:127
Validation: 28
Testing: 44
for tumors <3cm
DSC: p = 0.090,
MHD: p = 0.385,
MAD: p = 0.142
(140) 2021 AS-Net Liver segmentation T1-weighted MRI 219 patients,
Training:127
Validation: 28
Testing: 44
for tumors >3cm
DSC: p = 0.002,
MHD: p = 0.003,
MAD: p = 0.018
(148) 2021 DCNN+TR+RF Liver segmentation T1-weighted MRI LI-RADS Validation:
Dice=0.91, VOE=17,
RVD=-0.04, ASSD (mm)=2.47,
MSSD (mm)=25.91,
External validation:
Dice=0.91, VOE=16, RVD=-0.01, ASSD (mm)=2.67, MSSD (mm)=26.96
(149) 2021 U-net Segmentation T2-weighted MRI Total: 713 patients,
Training: 505,
Validation:104,
Testing:104
Validation:
Dice=0.984,
Test:
Dice=0.983
(150) 2021 United adversarial learning Liver tumor segmentation and
detection
multi-modality NCMRI (T1FS pre-contrast MRI, T2FS MRI, and DWI) 255 subjects Dice=0.8363, p-Acc=0.9775,
IoU=0.813, TPR=0.9213,
TNR=0.9375, Acc=0.9294
(150) 2021 Mask R-CNN Liver tumor segmentation and
detection
multi-modality NCMRI (T1FS pre-contrast MRI, T2FS MRI, and DWI) 255 subjects Dice=0.7517, p-Acc=0.9621,
IoU=0.6830, TPR=0.80,
TNR=0.832, Acc=0.8157
(150) 2021 FT-MTL-Net Liver tumor segmentation and
detection
multi-modality NCMRI (T1FS pre-contrast MRI, T2FS MRI, and DWI) 255 subjects Dice=0.7758, p-Acc=0.9648,
IoU=0.7064, TPR=0.814,
TNR=0.8413, Acc=0.8275
(150) 2021 Tripartite-GAN Liver tumor segmentation and
detection
multi-modality NCMRI (T1FS pre-contrast MRI, T2FS MRI, and DWI) 255 subjects IoU=0.7342, TPR=0.8682,
TNR=0.8968, Acc=0.8824
(150) 2021 Faster R-CNN Liver tumor segmentation and
detection
multi-modality NCMRI (T1FS pre-contrast MRI, T2FS MRI, and DWI) 255 subjects IoU=0.6643, TPR=0.7863,
TNR=0.8226, Acc=0.8039
(150) 2021 U-net Liver tumor segmentation and
detection
multi-modality NCMRI (T1FS pre-contrast MRI, T2FS MRI, and DWI) 255 subjects Dice=0.7888, p-Acc=0.9657,
IoU=0.5833
(150) 2021 Rg-GAN Liver tumor segmentation and
detection
multi-modality NCMRI (T1FS pre-contrast MRI, T2FS MRI, and DWI) 255 subjects Dice=0.8065, p-Acc=0.9672,
IoU=0.6017
(151) 2022 4D DL based on 3D CNN and LSTM HCC lesion segmentation T1-weighted MRI Total: 190 patients,
Training: 110,
Validation: 40,
Internal testing:40
Internal test:
Dice=0.825, HD=12.84, VS=0.891,
External test:
Dice=0.786, HD=21.14, VS=0.89
(151) 2022 3D U-net HCC lesion segmentation T1-weighted MRI Total: 190 patients,
Training: 110,
Validation: 40,
Internal testing:40
Internal test: Dice=0.669, HD=22.39, VS=0.751,
External test: Dice=0.604, HD=44.47, VS=0.786
(151) 2022 nnU-net HCC lesion segmentation T1-weighted MRI Total: 190 patients,
Training: 110,
Validation: 40,
Internal testing:40
Internal test: Dice=0.833, HD=10.75, VS=0.88,
External test: Dice=0.783, HD=38.61, VS=0.854
(151) 2022 RA-Unet HCC lesion segmentation T1-weighted MRI Total: 190 patients,
Training: 110,
Validation: 40,
Internal testing:40
Internal test: Dice=0.797, HD=23.88, VS=0.87,
External test: Dice=0.749, HD=55.60, VS=0.854
(152) 2022 3D CNN Liver segment segmentation MRI Total: 782 patients,
Training:367,
Validation:157,
Testing: 158,
Clinical evaluation set: 100
Average Dice=0.902,
Average MSD (mm)=3.34,
Average HD (mm) =3.61,
Average RV= 1.01
(153) 2022 nnU-Net Lliver parenchyma, portal veins, and hepatic veins segmentation T1-weighted MRI 30 patients liver parenchyma: Mean Dice=0.936,
portal veins: Median Dice=0.659,
hepatic veins: Median Dice=0.548
(139) 2023 Cascaded Network Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.9515,
IoU=0.921,
Acc=0.997
(139) 2023 Deep action learning with 3D UNet Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.806
(139) 2023 Contrastive Semi Supervised Learning Approach with UNet Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.859
(139) 2023 W-Net with attention gates Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.8812
(139) 2023 Source Free Unsupervised UNet Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.8840
(139) 2023 Bidirectional Searching Neural Net Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.898
(139) 2023 Mask R-CNN Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.8
(139) 2023 Geomatric Edge Enhancement based Mask R-CNN Liver segmentation T1-Weighted MRI CHAOS Dice=0.91
(154) 2023 UNet + +  Liver segmentation MRI Total: 105 patients
Training set: 83, Validation set: 11, Internal testing:11
Validation: average Dice=0.91,
Internal testing: average Dice=0.92
(154) 2023 UNet + +  Liver tumor segmentation MRI Total: 105 patients
Training: 83, Validation: 11, Internal testing:11
Validation: average Dice=0.612,
Internal testing: average Dice=0.687
(155) 2023 nnU-Net Liver and liver vessles segmentation T1-weighted MRI Total: 170 patients
Training set: 136,
Validation set:34
Dice=0.77,
ASSD=3.235,
HD95 = 11.276
(156) 2024 3D residual U-Net Liver segmentation MRCP 250 (225/25) Dice=0.8
(140) 2024 DCNN Liver segmentation T1-weighted MRI 470 patients,
Training set: 329,
Validation set: 70,
Internal testing: 71
External validation set: LiverHccSeg dataset
Training: mean Dice=0.968,
mean MHD=1.876,
mean MAD=0.538
Validation: mean Dice=0.966,
mean MHD=1.949,
mean MAD=0.541
Internal testing: mean Dice=0.967,
mean MHD=1.852,
mean MAD=0.545
External testing: mean Dice=0.962,
mean MHD=2.711,
mean MAD=0.705
Public testing: mean Dice=0.928,
mean MHD=6.893,
mean MAD=1.625
(157) 2024 Isensee 2017 network Liver segmentation T1-weighted MRI, T2-weighted MRI 128 patients average Dice =0.88
(157) 2024 Isensee 2017 network Liver tumor segmentation T1-weighted MRI, T2-weighted MRI 128 patients average Dice =0.53

AI-based MRI models for liver and liver tumors segmentation.

ANN, artificial neural network; AS-Net, all-stage-net; ASSD, average symmetric surface distance; CHAOS, combined healthy abdominal organ segmentation grant challenge; EIS-Net, early-intermediate-stage-net; HD95, Hausdorff Distance 95; MBH T2WI, conventional multi-breath-hold (MBH) T2WI; MICCAI, medical image computing and computer assisted intervention; NCMRI, multi-modality non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging; Radiomics-guided DUN-GAN, radiomics-guided densely-UNet-nested generative adversarial networks; SBH-T2WI, single-breath-hold T2-weighted MRI; TCIA, the cancer imaging archive.

Table 6

Ref Year AI Model Tasks Imaging method Dataset Internal Testing Results External Testing Results
(160) 2019 3D CNN Discriminating primary and metastatic liver tumors diffusion weighted MRI (DW-MRI) Training: 74,
Validation: 33,
Testing: 23
Acc=0.83,
Average Prec=0.75,
AUC=0.80,
Spec=0.67,
Sen=0.93,
Prec=0.83,
Fe-score=0.83
~
(159) 2019 CNN Classify liver lesions (six types) multi-phasic MRI Training:434,
Testing:60
Acc=0.897,
Prec=0.722,
Recall=0.826
~
(158) 2019 CNN-based DLS Classify FLLs include HCC multi-phasic MRI Training:434,
Testing:60
Overall Acc=0.90,
Overall Sen=0.94,
Overall Spec=0.97
~
(158) 2019 CNN-based DLS Classify common hepatic lesions T1-weighted MRI Training:434,
Testing:60
Acc=0.943 Acc=0.92,
Sen=0.92,
Spec=0.98
(165) 2019 Extremely randomized
trees classifier
Classify FLLs (five types) T2-weighted MRI 95 patients Overall Acc=0.77 ~
(16) 2020 AlexNet+ transfer learning distinguish LI-RADS grade 3 liver tumors from combined higher-grades 4 and 5 tumors for HCC diagnosis multiphase MRI LI-RADS dataset, Training (60%), Validation (20%), Testing (20%) Acc=0.90, Sen=1.0, Prec=0.835, AUC=0.95 ~
(161) 2020 CNN Classify HCC MRI Total: 1210 patients
(31608 images),
External validation:
201 patients (6816 images)
AUC=0.951,
Sen=0.919,
Spec=0.941
~
(161) 2020 CNN+ clinical data Classify HCC MRI Total: 1210 patients
(31608 images),
External validation: 201 patients
(6816 images)
AUC=0.951,
Sen=0.957,
Spec=0.904
~
(161) 2020 CNN+ clinical data Classify metastatic malignancy MRI Total: 1210 patients
(31608 images),
External validation: 201 patients
(6816 images)
AUC=0.985,
Sen=0.946,
Spec=1
~
(161) 2020 CNN+ clinical data Classify primary malignancy except HCC MRI Total: 1210 patients
(31608 images),
External validation: 201 patients
(6816 images)
AUC=0.905,
Sen=0.733,
Spec=0.964
~
(148) 2021 DCNN Detect HCC T1-weighted MRI LI-RADS Sen_20 = 0.73, Sen_50 = 0.55,
AFPR=2.81,
Dice=0.4
~
(148) 2021 DCNN+TR Detect HCC T1-weighted MRI LI-RADS Sen_20 = 0.73, Sen_50 = 0.55,
AFPR=0.77,
Dice=0.49
~
(148) 2021 DCNN+RF Detect HCC T1-weighted MRI LI-RADS Sen_20 = 0.73, Sen_50 = 0.55,
AFPR=0.85,
Dice=0.47
~
(148) 2021 DCNN+TR+RF Detect HCC T1-weighted MRI LI-RADS Sen_20 = 0.73, Sen_50 = 0.55,
AFPR=0.62,
Dice=0.49
Sen_20 = 0.75, Sen_50 = 0.66,
AFPR=0.75,
Dice=0.48
(149) 2021 ResNet50 Liver cirrhosis identification T2-weighted MRI Total: 713 patients,
Training: 505,
Validation:104,
Testing:104
Acc=0.99, Sen=0.98,
Spec=0.96
Acc=0.96,
Sen=0.98,
Spec=0.79
(149) 2021 DTL Liver cirrhosis classification T2-weighted MRI Total: 713 patients,
Training: 505,
Validation:104,
Test:104
Acc=0.88 Acc=0.91
(166) 2020 CNN Detect HCC MRI Training:455 patients,
Testing:45 patients
Sen=0.87, Spec=0.93, AUC=0.90 ~
(166) 2020 CNN Classify FLLs MRI Training:1210 patients,
Testing:201 patients
Sen=0.405~1,
Spec=0.673~1,
AUC=0.841−0.989
~
(166) 2020 CNN Distinction LI-RADS 3 & LI-RADS 4/5 tumors MRI 89 images from 59 patients Acc=0.767~0.9,
Sen=0.756~0.889
~
(166) 2020 CNN Classify HCC & non-HCC lesions MRI Training:140 patients,
Testing:10 patients
Acc=0.873,
Sen=0.82,
Spec=0.927
~
(166) 2020 CNN RF HCC detection MRI 171 patients Dice=0.48,
Sen=0.66~0.75
~
(167) 2021 GoogLeNet (Inception-V1) Classify HCC & normal histopathology images MRI 29 patients Acc=0.9137,
Sen=0.9216,
Spec=0.9057
~
(164) 2021 CNN Classify HCC MRI 118 patients Overall Acc=0.873 ~
(164) 2021 CNN Classify non-HCC MRI 118 patients Acc=0.941,
Sen=0.82,
Spec=0.927
~

AI-based MRI models for diagnosing HCC.

AFP, α-fetoprotein; AFPR, the average false positive rate; CDLM, combined deep learning model; cMRI, conventional magnetic resonance imaging (including T2 + DWI + DCE); DCE, dynamic contrast enhanced; DLCR, deep learning combined radiomics; DLF, deep learning features; DTL, deep transfer learning; DW-MRI, diffusion weighted MRI; EOB-MRI, gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; i-RAPIT, intelligent-augmented model for risk assessment of post liver transplantation; LASSO, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; LI-RADS, liver imaging reporting and data system; MCAT, multimodality-contribution-aware TripNet; MRE, magnetic resonance elastography; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.

Table 7

Ref Year AI Model Tasks Imaging modality Dataset Internal Testing Results External Testing Results
(170) 2021 First CapsNet Network Predict survival outcomes on liver transplantation patients with HCC MRI Training:87 patients,
Testing:22 patients
Acc=0.64,
F1 score=0.61
~
(168) 2021 H-DARnet Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.826,
Sen=0.795,
Spec=0.738,
AUC=0.775
~
(168) 2021 Vgg19 Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.505,
Sen=0.446,
Spec=0.629,
AUC=0.537
~
(168) 2021 AlexNet Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.515,
Sen=0.446,
Spec=0.662,
AUC=0.573
~
(168) 2021 SqueezeNet Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.54,
Sen=0.461,
Spec=0.708,
AUC=0.625
~
(168) 2021 ResNet50 Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.545,
Sen=0.453,
Spec=0.746,
AUC=0.626
~
(168) 2021 GoogleNet Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.605,
Sen=0.553,
Spec=0.713,
AUC=0.649
~
(168) 2021 DenseNet121 Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.625,
Sen=0.586,
Spec=0.711,
AUC=0.678
~
(168) 2021 SE-DenseNet121 Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.705,
Sen=0.753,
Spec=0.60,
AUC=0.738
~
(168) 2021 Simple-SE-DenseNet Predict MVI in HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training:168 patients,
Testing:57 patients
Acc=0.735,
Sen=0.754,
Spec=0.696,
AUC=0.769
~
(187) 2021 Fusion DL model Predict MVI in HCC patients EOB-MRI Training:329 patients; external test: 115 patients ~ Acc=0.757,
Sen=0.704,
Spec=0.803,
AUC=0.802
(187) 2021 CDLM Predict MVI in HCC patients EOB-MRI Training:329 patients; external test: 115 patients ~ Acc=0.757,
Sen=0.704,
Spec=0.803,
AUC=0.812
(171) 2021 DLF Predict
PD-L1 expression level in HCC patients
T2-weighted MRI 103 patients 5-Fold cross validation:
Acc=0.854,
F1-score=0.703,
Spec=0.947,
Prec=0.892,
Recall=0.633,
AUC=0.852
~
(171) 2021 radiomics-based model+DLF Predict
PD-L1 expression level in HCC patients
T2-weighted MRI 103 patients 5-Fold cross validation:
Acc=0.887,
F1-score=0.764,
Spec=0.981,
Prec=0.948,
Recall=0.660,
AUC=0.897
~
(172) 2023 SVM Predict MVI in HCC patients multi-parameter MRI Training:297 patients,
Testing: 100 patients
Acc=0.64,
Sen=0.8065,
Spec=0.5652,
AUC=0.766
~
(172) 2023 ResNet18 Predict MVI in HCC patients multi-parameter MRI Training:297 patients,
Testing: 100 patients
Acc=0.73,
Sen=0.7097,
Spec=0.7391,
AUC=0.7938
~
(169) 2023 KNN Predict TACE outcomes for HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training: 115 patients,
Testing; 29 patients
Acc=0.655,
Sen=0.538,
Spec=0.75,
AUC=0.669
Acc=0.536,
Sen=0.857,
Spec=0.357,
AUC=0.615
(169) 2023 SVM Predict TACE outcomes for HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training: 115 patients,
Testing; 29 patients
Acc=0.621,
Sen=0.769,
Spec=0.563,
AUC=0.688
Acc=0.679,
Sen=0.786,
Spec=0.714,
AUC=0.712
(169) 2023 Lasso Predict TACE outcomes for HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training: 115 patients,
Testing; 29 patients
Acc=0.655,
Sen=0.769,
Spec=0.813,
AUC=0.745
Acc=0.679,
Sen=0.929,
Spec=0.5,
AUC=0.663
(169) 2023 DNN Predict TACE outcomes for HCC patients T2-weighted MRI Training: 115 patients,
Testing; 29 patients
Acc=0.759,
Sen=0.923,
Spec=0.688,
AUC=0.837
Acc=0.714,
Sen=0.714,
Spec=0.857,
AUC=0.796

AI-based MRI models for HCC prognostication.

CDLM, contrast-dependent learning model; EOB-MRI, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI; MVI, Microvascular Invasion; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization.

Table 8

Ref Year AI Model Task Imaging method Dataset Results
(144) 2019 2D U-Net Liver segmentation T1-weighted MRI+ T2-weighted MRI+CT Total: 498 subjects CT: Dice=0.94 ± 0.06,
T1-weighted MRI: Dice=0.95 ± 0.03,
T2-weighted MRI: Dice=0.92 ± 0.05
(174) 2019 CycleGAN-
DADR
Liver segmentation CT+MRI LiTS+multi-phasic MRI images of 20 patients with HCC Dice=0.74
(112) 2021 APA2Seg-Net Liver segmentation CBCT+MRI LiTS CBCT:
Median Dice=0.903,
Mean Dice=0.893,
Median ASD=5.882,
Mean ASD=5.886,
MRI:
Median Dice=0.918,
Mean Dice=0.921,
Median ASD=1.491,
Mean ASD=1.860
(175) 2022 Unsupervised domain adaptation framework Liver segmentation MRI+CT LiTS+ CHAOS Dice= 0.912 ± 0.037
(173) 2023 SWTR-Unet Joint liver and hepatic lesion
segmentation
MRI+CT 61440 MRI images + 189600 CT images Diceliver=0.98 ± 0.02,
Dicelesion=0.81 ± 0.28,
HDliver=1.02 ± 0.18,
HDlesion=7.03 ± 17.37

Summary of studies evaluating AI-based multi-modal models for liver and liver tumors segmentation.

CycleGAN- DADR, CycleGAN based domain adaptation via disentangled representations.

Table 9

Ref Year AI Model Task Imaging modality Dataset Results
(176) 2020 DCNN Diagnosis HCC CT + 20
biological
markers
Total: 766
Training:536
Validation: 153
Testing:77
(161) 2020 Google Inception-ResNet V2 CNN + autoencoder neural network CNN Diagnosis HCC MRI + 16
biological
markers
Total: 38424 images
Training:31608 images from 1210 patients
Validation: 6816 images from 201 patients
AUC=0.946 for distinguishing malignant from benign liver tumors,
AUC=0.985 for classifying HCC
AUC=0.998 for classifying metastatic tumors,
AUC=0.963 for classifying other primary malignancies
(177) 2021 Xception CNN Diagnosis HCC CT+ 20
clinical
parameters
Total: 37084
Training: 29104,
Validation: 3816,
Testing:4164
Acc = 0.869,
Prec =0.896,
Recall =0.869,
F1 score =0.867
(118) 2021 STIC Classify HCC and ICC Multi-phase CECT+clinical data Total: 723 patients,
Training:499,
Testing:113,
External testing: 111
Acc=0.862,
AUC=0.893
(178) 2021 STIC Diferential diagnosis
of malignant hepatic tumors
Multi-phase CECT+clinical data Total: 723 patients,
Training:499,
Testing:113,
External testing: 111
Acc=0.726,
(179) 2021 SVM Classify aHCC and FNH CEUS+ radiologist’s 266 patients AUC=0.93,
Sen=0.935,
Spec=0.849
(180) 2022 DL Classify benign and malignant liver lesions CEUS+clinical factors 303 patients AUC=0.957,
Acc=0.94,
Sen=0.966,
Spec=0.905
(181) 2023 Multi-modal DNN + Transfer learning & fine-tuned Multi-class liver cancer diagnosis CT+ pathology data Average Acc=0.9606,
AUC=0.832

AI-based multi-modal models for diagnosing HCC.

Table 10

Ref Year AI Model Task Imaging method Dataset Results
(182) 2020 Cox-PH Predict MVI in HCC patients CT + 9 clinical
parameters
Total:145
Training set: 145
AUC=0.79
(183) 2021 GhostNet/CNN Predict TACE response for HCC therapy CT + clinical evaluation (clinical
parameters and biological
markers)
Training:319 patients,
Validation: 80 patients
AUC=0.98,
Acc=0.98
(170) 2021 First CapsNet network + Second CapsNet network Predict survival outcomes on liver transplantation patients with HCC MRI + pathology Training:87 patients,
Testing:22 patients
Acc=0.68,
F1 score=0.65
(170) 2021 First CapsNet network + RBF network Predict survival outcomes on liver transplantation patients with HCC MRI + Clinical signatures Training:87 patients,
Testing:22 patients
Acc=0.78,
F1 score=0.75
(170) 2021 Second CapsNet network + RBF network Predict survival outcomes on liver transplantation patients with HCC Pathology + clinical Training:87 patients,
Testing:22 patients
Acc=0.77,
F1 score=0.73
(170) 2021 i-RAPIT Predict survival outcomes on liver transplantation patients with HCC Clinical+MRI+pathology features Training:87 patients,
Testing:22 patients
Acc=0.87,
F1 score=0.84,
Recall=0.80,
Prec=0.89
(184) 2021 Radiomics, CNN Predict MVI in HCC patients MRI + 22
clinical
parameters
Total: 601
Training set:461
Test set:140
AUC= 0.915,
Overall Acc=0.793
(133) 2021 UNet, radiomics,
multi-task deep learning
neural network (MTNet)
Predict MVI in HCC patients CT+ 22
biological
markers
Total: 366
Training set:281
Validation set: 85
Training set: AUC=0.877,
Validation set: AUC=0.836
(185) 2022 Baseline+MCAT Histologic grading of HCC T2-weighted MRI + T1-weighted MRI +DCE MRI 59 patients Acc=0.8344,
Sen=0.8725,
Prec=0.8942,
F1-score=0.8877
(185) 2022 Baseline+MAWM Histologic grading of HCC T2-weighted MRI + T1-weighted MRI +DCE MRI 59 patients Acc=0.7922,
Sen=0.8291,
Prec=0.8197,
F1-score=0.8382
(185) 2022 Baseline+TripNet Histologic grading of HCC T2-weighted MRI + T1-weighted MRI +DCE MRI 59 patients Acc=0.7854,
Sen=0.7944,
Prec=0.8235,
F1-score=0.7867
(186) 2022 DLCR Predict Ki-67 expression in HCC patients cMRI + AFP Total: 108 patients,
Training: 87 patients,
Internal validation:21 patients
External Testing: 43 patients
Validation:
Acc=0.81,
Sen=0.80,
Spec=0.82,
PPV=0.78,
NPV=0.80,
AUC=0.84
External Testing:
Acc=0.72,
Sen=0.72,
Spec=0.72,
PPV=0.68,
NPV=0.71,
AUC=0.74
(186) 2022 DLCR Predict Ki-67 expression in HCC patients cMRI + AFP
+ MRE
Total: 108 patients,
Training: 87 patients,
Internal validation:21 patients
external Testing: 43 patients
Validation:
Acc=0.87,
Sen=0.86,
Spec=0.93,
PPV=0.84,
NPV=0.87,
AUC=0.90
External Testing:
Acc=0.83,
Sen=0.80,
Spec=0.86,
PPV=0.78,
NPV=0.80,
AUC=0.83
(138) 2023 ResNet18 Predict MVI in HCC patients CT+multi-parameter MRI Training:297 patients,
Testing: 100 patients
Traing:
Acc=0.8923,Sen=0.8908,
Spec=0.8933, AUC=0.9558,
Testing:
Acc=0.8, Sen=0.7742,
Spec=0.8116, AUC=0.8191
(138) 2023 ResNet18 +SVM Predict MVI in HCC patients CT+multi-parameter MRI Training:297 patients,
Testing: 100 patients
Traing:
Acc=0.9293, Sen=0.9160,
Spec=0.9382, AUC=0.9804
Testing:
Acc=0.82, Sen=0.7742,
Spec=0.8406, AUC=0.8415

AI-based multi-modal models for prognostication of HCC.

APA2Seg-Net, anatomy-preserving domain adaptation to segmentation network; Cox-PH, Cox-proportional hazard; STIC, spatial extractor-temporal encoder-integration-classifier; SWTR-Unet, SWIN-transformer-Unet.

3 Artificial intelligence techniques

AI techniques, including Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), have been extensively investigated in application and interest within the field of liver cancer research (187190). ML utilizes data to develop algorithms that can identify specific behavioral patterns and build predictive models. The objective of ML is to create a model that leverages statistical dependencies and correlations within a dataset, eliminating the need for explicit programming. This process is divided into two stages: training and validation. During the training stage, the model is exposed to a portion of the available data (training dataset). In the validation stage, the model’s performance is evaluated on a separate subset of the dataset (test dataset) to assess its ability to generalize its training performance to unseen data. Well-known ML algorithms, such as Support Vector Machines (SVM) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), have been applied in HCC management (191, 192).

DL technology, a subset of ML, has shown remarkable efficacy in the analysis of liver images. This is largely due to its ability to process large volumes of data through multiple layers of artificial neurons. These neurons are engineered to emulate the intricate structure of the human brain and its biological neural networks. A unique characteristic of DL algorithms is that these layers of features are not manually constructed with human expertise. Rather, they are autonomously learned from data using a general-purpose learning procedure. This facilitates an end-to-end mapping from the input to the output, essentially converting the image into classification methods. In ML methods, success is contingent upon accurate segmentation and the selection of expert-designed features. DL approaches can surmount these limitations as they can identify the regions of the image most associated with the outcome through self-training. Moreover, they can discern the features of the region that informed the decision through multiple layers.

Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are presently the most prevalent DL algorithms employed for the diagnosis and management of HCC (193195). The uniqueness of CNNs compared to Fully Connected Networks lies in their ability to capture spatial hierarchies through convolutional and pooling layers, their parameter efficiency due to shared weights, and their effectiveness in processing structured data like images and videos. The fundamental principles of CNNs include local connections, shared weights, pooling, and the use of numerous layers. These components collectively enhance the accuracy and efficiency of the entire system. A standard CNN model is composed of an input layer, an output layer, and several hidden layers. These hidden layers encompass convolutional layers, pooling layers, and fully-connected layers. By repeatedly applying convolution and pooling, fully-connected layers are subsequently utilized for classification or predictions. There exists a variety of layer combinations, and numerous Deep Neural Network (DNN) architectures have been successfully implemented for HCC diagnosis and prediction. These include Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) (196), 3D U-Net (197), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) (198), Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) (199, 200), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) (16, 201), AlexNet (202), and VGGNet-19 (203). These models are specifically engineered to eliminate fully connected layers and restore spatial dimensions, thereby augmenting DL capabilities even when there is a scarcity of labeled data. However, it is imperative to address domain adaptation and dataset bias to ensure the success of transfer learning (TL). This is because these factors can significantly influence the performance and generalizability of the models.

In contrast to CNNs, Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) are engineered to preserve spatial information, thereby enhancing their effectiveness for pixel-level predictions. This attribute renders FCNs particularly apt for liver tumor segmentation, as they employ convolutional layers in lieu of fully connected ones (196).

U-Net, conversely, utilizes an encoder-decoder model equipped with skip connections. This architecture enables it to amalgamate local and global context information, thereby augmenting object localization precision. Despite the limitations posed by scarce training data, 3D U-Net has exhibited remarkable results in the classification of liver lesions (197).

RNNs, encompassing Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrence Unit (GRU), are specifically tailored to scrutinize sequential data by capturing temporal dependencies. These models have been successfully deployed for predicting HCC recurrence post liver transplantation (198). By addressing the vanishing gradients issue and capitalizing on temporal dependencies, they have substantially enhanced prediction accuracy.

Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) offer a variety of techniques for graph convolution, which are instrumental in clinically predicting Microvascular Invasion (MVI) in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) (199). These techniques include spectral-based and spatial-based GCN approaches, each carrying unique computational implications. DenseGCN, a contemporary architecture, has been introduced for the identification of liver cancer. It integrates advanced techniques such as similarity network fusion and denoising autoencoders, significantly boosting detection accuracy (200).

Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have demonstrated their value in generating synthetic images and augmenting data across a range of medical applications. In the realm of liver tumor detection, Tripartite GAN offers a cost-effective and non-invasive alternative by generating contrast-enhanced MRI images, eliminating the need for contrast agent injection (201). Another promising application is the Mask-Attention GAN, which generates realistic tumor images in CT scans for training and evaluation purposes (16).

Transfer Learning (TL) strategies have been employed in the field of medical imaging to mitigate overfitting issues arising from limited data. Within the TL framework, knowledge can be shared and transferred between different tasks. The workflow comprises two steps: pretraining on a large dataset and fine-tuning on the target dataset. Essentially, by fine-tuning the DL architecture, the knowledge gleaned from one dataset can be transferred to a dataset procured from another center.

4 AI-based US techniques

US is recommended in clinical guidelines for the detection of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. However, its efficacy can be influenced by several factors, including operator experience, equipment quality, and patient morphology. Previous studies have indicated that the sensitivity of HCC detection using conventional US ranges from 59% to 78% (204). To enhance sensitivity and specificity, various US modalities have been explored. For instance, Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) has been demonstrated to improve the sensitivity of HCC detection. These models serve as invaluable tools for predicting HCC recurrence, guiding treatment decisions, and improving patient outcomes. This study investigates the most recently developed AI-based approaches for evaluating detection, prognostication, treatment response, and survival in HCC. Table 1 provides a summary of the results from studies evaluating AI-based US approaches for HCC diagnosis.

4.1 Diagnosis of focal liver lesions

This section outlines the recently developed AI-based US models for diagnosing HCC. These applications encompass diagnosing focal liver lesions (FLLs), distinguishing between benign and malignant liver lesions, differentiating HCC from focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), cirrhotic parenchyma (PAR), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) (see Table 1). Among these studies, Bharti et al. (21) proposed a Support Vector Machine (SVM) model that integrates three classifiers using B-mode US data to assess and differentiate various stages of liver disease, achieving a classification accuracy of 96.6%.

In 2020, Brehar et al. (24) demonstrated that a CNN model, trained on two distinct US machine datasets (GE9 and GE7), surpassed conventional ML models (SVM, Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron, and AdaBoost) in differentiating between HCC and PAR. The proposed model achieved Area Under the Curve (AUC) values of 0.91 and 0.95 and accuracies of 84.84% and 91% in the GE9 and GE7 datasets, respectively. In 2023, Jeon et al. (35) proposed a CNN model using quantitative US data from 173 patients for diagnosing hepatic steatosis, achieving an AUC of 0.97, a sensitivity of 90%, and a specificity of 91%.

CEUS generally outperforms B-mode US in diagnosing FLLs and HCC, and AI has augmented its capabilities in identifying potential malignancies. Several research groups have studied the differentiation of benign and malignant FLLs (refer to Table 1). In 2020, Huang et al. (43) investigated the use of an SVM model for evaluating diagnostic accuracy when differentiating between atypical HCCs (aHCC) and FNH using CEUS data. The proposed SVM model achieved an AUC of 0.944, a sensitivity of 94.76%, and a specificity of 93.62%.

In 2021, Căleanu et al. (44) proposed a DL model to classify five types of FLLs using CEUS data, obtaining a general accuracy of 88%. Hu et al. (45) investigated a CNN model trained on four-phase CEUS video data from 363 patients. The proposed CNN model achieved an accuracy of 91% and an AUC of 0.934 on the testing dataset, slightly outperforming resident radiologists and matching experts.

4.2 Characterization of focal liver lesions

In a study conducted by Virmani et al. (7), a Neural Network Ensemble (NNE) model was proposed to distinguish a normal liver from four distinct liver lesions, achieving an impressive accuracy of 95%. The diagnoses for the included liver lesions were confirmed through experienced radiologists, clinical follow-ups, and other associated findings.

In 2017, Hassan et al. (20) introduced an ANN model that achieved a classification accuracy of 97.2% for benign and malignant FLLs. In 2019, Schmauch et al. (22) developed a supervised DL model, specifically a CNN, utilizing a French radiology public challenge dataset for diagnosing FLLs. The model was capable of detecting FLLs and categorizing them as benign (such as cyst, FNH, and angioma) or malignant (like HCC, metastasis), achieving a mean AUC of 0.935 and 0.916 in the training dataset. Despite promising results, further validation is required due to the limited number of images used for training.

In 2020, Yang et al. (23) conducted a multicenter study to develop a Deep Convolutional Neural Network (DCNN) using an US database, along with background and clinical parameters (such as HBV, HCV, lesion margin, morphology) for characterizing FLLs. The model achieved an AUC of 0.924 for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions in the external validation dataset. The model demonstrated superior accuracy compared to clinical radiologists and CECT, albeit slightly lower than Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CE-MRI) (87.9%). This approach could potentially enhance radiologists’ performance and reduce the reliance on CECT/CEMR and biopsy.

In 2021, Mao et al. (25) developed various ML-based models for distinguishing primary liver cancer and secondary liver cancer by extracting radiomic features from US images. The Logistic Regression (LR) model outperformed other ML models in this study. Ren et al. (30) applied a Support Vector Machine (SVM) model in B-mode US for predicting the pathological grading of HCC, achieving an AUC of 0.874 in the test set. The same research group also developed another SVM model for differentiating HCC from Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), yielding good performances (31). In these studies, liver lesions were pathologically confirmed and used as the standard reference.

In 2017, Guo et al. (40) demonstrated that a multiple-kernel learning-based model could enhance the sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of CEUS for detecting HCC. Later, Ta et al. (41) proposed an ANN model using CEUS data for differentiating benign liver lesions from malignant ones. The model showed promising results, classifying liver lesions as benign or malignant with accuracy comparable to expert radiologists and superior to physicians. Huang et al. (43) constructed an SVM model for differentiating atypical HCC (aHCC) and FNH using CEUS data, achieving an average accuracy of 94.4% compared to pathology reports and clinical follow-up.

In 2021, Wang et al. (46) proposed an SVM model using CEUS data, which could discriminate HCC pathological grading with an AUC of 0.72. More recently, Zhou et al. (48) investigated CNN-Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), 3D CNN, and ML-TIC models for classifying benign and malignant liver lesions using CEUS data from 440 patients, achieving AUC values of 0.91, 0.88, and 0.78, respectively.

4.3 Evaluation prognostication, treatment response and survival in HCC

Surgery, Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE), and Microwave Ablation are widely recognized as treatment methods for liver cancer. Each method requires meticulous candidate evaluation to ensure optimal therapeutic effectiveness (3840). Wu et al. (203) employed ResNet18 in B-mode US to predict HCC recurrence after Microwave Ablation. The model achieved C-index values of 0.695, 0.715, 0.721, and 0.721 for early relapse, late relapse, and relapse-free survival in HCC patients, respectively.

Liu et al. (42) developed two DL-based models using CEUS data to predict the two-year progression-free survival of HCC patients undergoing either Radiofrequency Ablation or Surgical Resection. The models achieved C-index values of 0.726 and 0.741 for Radiofrequency Ablation and Surgical Resection, respectively. When the Surgical model was applied to predict outcomes for patients initially treated with Ablation, it suggested that approximately 17.3% of Ablation patients could potentially experience a longer two-year progression-free survival if they underwent Surgery. Conversely, the Ablation predictive model indicated that 27.3% of Surgical patients might achieve a longer two-year progression-free survival if they had received Ablation treatment. These CEUS-based models provide accurate survival assessments for HCC patients and facilitate optimal treatment selection. Furthermore, the same research group employed a DL model to quantitatively analyze CEUS videos (43). They developed three models to predict personalized responses of HCC patients after their first TACE session. The CEUS-based model outperformed the other two ML models, achieving a higher AUC value (0.93 vs 0.80 vs 0.81).

In another study, Ma et al. (44) applied a Radiomics model in dynamic CEUS to predict early and late recurrence in patients with an HCC lesion less than 5cm in diameter after Thermal Ablation. The prediction model yielded an AUC of 0.84 for early recurrence and a C-index of 0.77 for late recurrence in the test group. The proposed model, which combines CEUS, US Radiomics, and clinical factors, performed well in predicting early HCC recurrence after Ablation and could stratify the high risk of late recurrence.

Lastly, Liu et al. (16) introduced DL models in CEUS to predict the two-year progression-free survival rate of HCC patients, demonstrating exceptional accuracy in guiding treatment decisions. Other researchers have incorporated additional pattern recognition classifiers into DCNN algorithms using CEUS to improve the diagnosis of FLLs. However, previous studies only involved small sample sizes, thus standardized imaging data or external validations are required to validate the model’s generalizability across populations.

5 AI-based CT techniques

Numerous research groups have explored the application of AI in liver cancer research, specifically leveraging CT scan technology. This section delves into AI-based CT methodologies for diagnosing and predicting HCC. Tables 2 and 3 encapsulate selected studies, which can be categorized into three distinct groups: segmentation of liver and liver tumors, characterization of FLLs, and evaluation of prognostication, treatment response, and survival in HCC patients.

5.1 Segmentation of liver and liver tumors

The segmentation of liver and liver tumors plays a crucial role in assessing tumor burden, detecting early recurrence, extracting image features, and formulating treatment plans. The manual segmentation of liver and liver lesions is a significant challenge and is time-consuming due to the extensive range of radiographic features in HCC. AI-driven CT models have emerged as powerful tools for the automatic segmentation of liver and liver tumors. Table 2 provides a summary of recently developed AI-driven CT models for segmentation of liver and liver tumors.

In 2015, Li et al. (49) introduced a DCNN for the segmentation of liver tumors in CT scans, achieving a precision rate of 82.67%. In 2017, Vivanti et al. (50) examined a CNN-based segmentation model for the automatic detection of recurrence during follow-up, achieving a true positive rate of 86% for lesions larger than 5 mm (28). Subsequently, Sun et al. (51) and Das et al. (52) conducted comprehensive studies on the automatic segmentation of tumors in the liver using CNN-based architectures such as Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs) and U-Net. In 2017, Sun et al. (51) proposed an FCNs model for the segmentation of liver tumors, achieving high accuracy.

Since 2017, the Liver Tumor Segmentation Challenge (LiTS) has been encouraging researchers to create AI models for the automatic segmentation of liver tumors. This challenge utilizes a multinational dataset of CT images, known as LiTS17, which includes 130 CT images for training and 70 CT images for testing. Over the past few years, this challenge has seen participation from more than 280 research teams worldwide, with models based on Fully Convolutional Networks (FCN) or U-Net achieving top scores for the segmentation of liver and liver tumors.

At present, the highest-scoring model, MAD-UNet (83), has achieved Dice score of 0.9727 for the segmentation of liver using the LiTS17 dataset. While these results are promising, there is a notable variability in both the imaging characteristics of liver tumors and their delineation. This highlights the need for universal and standardized methods for liver tumor segmentation.

5.2 Characterization of focal liver lesions

Table 3 summarizes the results of studies that have evaluated AI-based CT models for diagnosing HCC. Mokrane et al. (106) developed a ML model using 13,920 CT images from 189 patients. This model was able to distinguish HCC from non-HCC lesions in cirrhotic patients, achieving AUC values of 0.81 and 0.66 in the training and external validation datasets, respectively.

In 2019, Khan et al. (107) developed a SVM model that classified FLLs as benign or malignant, achieving an accuracy of 98.3%. Das et al. (52) proposed a CAD system based on a watershed transform and Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) for accurate and automated liver lesion detection using CT scan data. The liver was first separated using the watershed transform method, and the liver lesion was segmented using the GMM algorithm. Texture features were extracted and fed into a DNN model to automatically classify three types of liver tumors, including hemangioma, HCC, and metastatic carcinoma. The proposed model achieved a classification accuracy of 99.38% and a Jaccard index of 98.18%.

In 2020, Li et al. (108) developed a CAD system using ANN, SVM, and CNN models for diagnosing three types of HCC lesions, including nodular, diffuse, and massive. The experimental results demonstrated that the CNN model outperformed both the ANN and SVM models in classifying nodular and massive lesions, but not diffuse lesions.

In 2021, Mao et al. (25) developed a gradient boosting-based model using clinical parameters and CECT data for pathological grading of HCC. The combined model exhibited the best performance with an AUC of 0.8014 in the test set. Shi et al. (109) compared the performance of a DL-based three-phase CECT model with a four-phase CT protocol for distinguishing HCC from other FLLs. The DL-based three-phase CECT protocol without pre-contrast achieved a similar diagnostic accuracy (85.6%) to the four-phase CT protocol (83.3%). These findings suggest that omitting the pre-contrast phase might not compromise accuracy while reducing a patient’s radiation dose.

Several CNN-based models have been developed using CT data for diagnosing HCC. In 2018, Yasaka et al. (110) proposed a CNN model using three-phase CT for distinguishing malignant liver lesions from indeterminate and benign liver lesions. The proposed model achieved a median AUC of 0.92 in the test set. In 2019, Todoroki et al. (111) developed a CNN-based model using multiphasic CT images for detecting and classifying five types of FLLs. Ben-Cohen et al. (91) introduced a FCN architecture with sparsity-based false positive reduction for liver tumor detection, outperforming traditional models. By employing the FCN-4s model and sparsity-based fine-tuning, they successfully detected 94.7% of small lesions, surpassing the performance of the U-Net model.

In 2021, Zhou et al. (112) proposed a multi-modality and multi-scale CNN model for automatically detecting and classifying FLLs in multi-phasic CT. The model obtained an average test precision of 82.8%, recall of 93.4%, and F1-score of 87.8%. The model achieved average accuracies of 82.5% and 73.4% for the binary and six-class classification, respectively. In this study, the classification performance of the model was placed between a junior and senior physician’s evaluation. This preliminary study showed that this CNN-based model can accurately locate and classify FLLs, and could assist inexperienced physicians in reaching a diagnosis in clinical practice. Similarly, Ponnoprat et al. (113) constructed a two-step model based on CNN and SVM for distinguishing HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), and the model achieved a classification accuracy of 88%.

In 2021, Krishnan et al. (114) introduced a novel multi-level ensemble architecture for detecting and classifying HCC from other FLLs. This innovative approach highlights the potential of ensemble techniques in improving the specificity and sensitivity of liver cancer diagnosis using CT imaging.

In 2023, Manjunath et al. (115) developed a novel DL model using CT data to detect and classify liver tumors. The experimental results demonstrated that the proposed model improved accuracy, Dice similarity coefficient, and specificity compared to existing algorithms, emphasizing the continuous evolution of DL models for precise liver cancer diagnosis.

5.3 Prognostication of HCC

Numerous research groups have focused their efforts on the applications of AI models using CT and CECT images for the prognostication of HCC. Table 4 provides a summary of the results from studies that evaluated AI-based CT models for HCC prognostication. Among these studies, Peng et al. (131) proposed a novel AI model based on conventional Machine Learning (cML) and DL methods. This model utilized CT data from 310 patients to predict TACE in patients with HCC. The experimental results demonstrated that the proposed model achieved AUC values of 0.995 and 0.994 in the training and testing datasets, respectively.

In 2021, Jiang et al. (81) developed a 3D CNN using CT data from 405 patients. This model was designed to predict Microvascular Invasion (MVI) in patients with HCC and obtained commendable AUC values of 0.98 and 0.906 in the training and testing datasets, respectively.

In 2022, Yang et al. (132) conducted an investigation of various AI models using CECT data from 283 patients. The aim was to predict MVI in patients with HCC. The experimental results revealed that the DL-based clinical-radiological model achieved the best performance with an accuracy of 96.47%, a sensitivity of 90.91%, a specificity of 97.30%, a precision of 89.4%, an F1 score of 87%, and an AUC of 0.909.

6 AI-based MRI methods

To date, the application of AI models in MRI for diagnosing HCC has not been extensively adopted. The development of MRI features poses technical challenges and incurs substantial costs, resulting in a scarcity of published studies with relatively small sample sizes. This section explores the progression of AI-based MRI models for the diagnosis of HCC.

6.1 Segmentation of liver and liver tumors

In recent years, a multitude of research groups have focused on the applications of AI models utilizing MRI data for the automated segmentation of the liver and liver tumors. Table 5 encapsulates the AI-based MRI models recently developed for the segmentation of liver and liver tumors. Among the various studies, the most remarkable performance was delivered by Hossain et al. (139), who pioneered a cascaded network to address anatomical ambiguity. This model, which employs T1-weighted MRI data for liver segmentation, exhibited an impressive performance with a Dice coefficient of 0.9515, Intersection over Union (IoU) of 0.921, and an accuracy of 99.7%.

More recently, Gross et al. (140) developed a DCNN model using T1-weighted MRI data from 470 patients for liver segmentation. The results suggested that the proposed DCNN model achieved mean Dice values of 0.968, 0.966, and 0.928 in the training, validation, and public testing datasets, respectively.

6.2 Characterization of focal liver lesions

Table 6 encapsulates the advancements in AI-based MRI models for diagnosing HCC. These models have shown promise in improving the detection and classification of FLLs, including HCC. In 2019, Hamm et al. (158) proposed a CNN model capable of classifying six types of FLLs, namely adenoma, cyst, Focal Nodular Hyperplasia (FNH), HCC, Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), and metastases. The model demonstrated an impressive overall accuracy of 92%, with sensitivity values spanning from 60% to 100%, and specificity values between 89% and 99%. This study highlighted the potential of DL in accurately identifying various types of FLLs.

Wang et al. (159) developed an interpretable DL model using MRI images. The model achieved a positive predictive rate of 76.5% and a sensitivity of 82.9% for classifying FLLs. The interpretability of this model enhances its clinical utility by offering insights into the decision-making process.

Trivizakis et al. (160) employed a 3D CNN model with Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance (DW-MR) data to classify primary and metastatic liver tumors. The model achieved an accuracy of 83%, underscoring the potential of DL in enhancing liver tumor recognition, particularly in datasets with limited size and disease specificity.

In 2020, Zhen et al. (161) pioneered several CNN models, including a distinctive model that utilizes unenhanced MR images for liver tumor diagnosis, thereby eliminating the need for contrast agent injection. This innovative approach demonstrated a performance on par with experienced radiologists, suggesting a potential reduction in patient discomfort and risks associated with contrast agents.

Kim et al. (162) introduced a CNN model that achieved an impressive AUC of 0.97, a sensitivity of 94%, and a specificity of 99% for HCC detection using a training dataset of 455 patients. In a validation dataset of 45 patients, the model maintained an AUC of 0.90, sensitivity of 87%, and specificity of 93% for HCC detection. This study underscored the capability of deep learning models in accurately identifying HCC, a critical step in early diagnosis and treatment planning.

Wu et al. (16) developed a DL model based on multiphase, contrast-enhanced MRI to differentiate between different grades of liver tumors for HCC diagnosis. The model utilized a CNN to classify the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System tumor grades of liver lesions based on MRI data acquired at three-time points. The DL CNN model achieved high accuracy, sensitivity, precision, and AUC, providing valuable clinical guidance for differentiating between intermediate LR-3 liver lesions and more likely malignant LR-4/LR-5 lesions in HCC diagnosis.

In 2021, Wan et al. (163) proposed a CNN architecture based on multi-scale and multi-level fusion (MMF-CNN) for detecting liver lesions in MRI images. The model’s effectiveness was confirmed through comparative analysis with other DL models, emphasizing its potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. The proposed MMF-CNN architecture is a promising approach to accurately and efficiently detect liver lesions in MRI images, which can significantly improve patient outcomes.

Oestmann et al. (164) presented a CNN model that employs multiphasic MR images to differentiate between HCC and non-HCC lesions. The model demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities for both lesion types, achieving 92.7% and 82.0% sensitivities for HCC and non-HCC lesions, respectively, and specificities of 82.0% for both HCC and non-HCC lesions. The research underscored the importance of accurately distinguishing between HCC and non-HCC lesions to guide appropriate treatment strategies for liver cancer patients.

Bousabarah et al. (148) proposed a CNN for detecting and segmenting HCC using multiphase contrast-enhanced MRI data. The model exhibited a promising performance with 73% and 75% sensitivities for validation and testing datasets, respectively. The performance evaluation compared the automatically detected lesions with manual segmentation. The mean Dice score values between the identified lesions using the CNN model and manual segmentations were 0.64 and 0.68 for the validation and testing datasets, respectively.

The advancements in CNN-based MRI models for diagnosing HCC have significantly enhanced the accuracy, efficiency, and precision of lesion classification and detection. From distinguishing different types of FLLs to detecting targeted HCC, these CNN-based models have showcased remarkable performance metrics and potential clinical utility. Further research and validation studies are essential to fully assess the capabilities of these models in clinical settings, paving the way for personalized and effective treatment strategies in liver cancer management.

6.3 Prognostication of HCC

A select number of research groups have ventured into the application of AI models and MRI-based data for HCC prognostication. Table 7 encapsulates a summary of studies evaluating AI-based MRI models for this purpose.

In 2021, Gao et al. (168) scrutinized various AI models using T2-weighted MRI data from 225 patients to predict Microvascular Invasion (MVI) in patients with HCC. The H-DARnet model outshone others, achieving an accuracy of 82.6%, a sensitivity of 79.5%, a specificity of 73.8%, and an AUC of 0.775.

Wei et al. (187) investigated the fusion DL model and the Contrast-Dependent Learning Model (CDLM) using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI) data from 225 patients for predicting MVI in patients with HCC. Both models exhibited robust performance, with the Fusion DL model achieving an accuracy of 89.4%, a sensitivity of 78.1%, a specificity of 95.3%, and an AUC of 0.93. The CDLM model achieved an accuracy of 92.4%, a sensitivity of 93.9%, a specificity of 91.6%, and an AUC of 0.962 in the training dataset.

In 2023, Chen et al. (169) explored four models (KNN, SVM, Lasso, and DNN) using T2-weighted MRI data from 144 patients for predicting Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) outcomes in patients with HCC. Among these, the Lasso model achieved the best performance.

These studies underscore the potential of AI models in conjunction with MRI data for predicting HCC, demonstrating promising results in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Further research in this area could catalyze significant advancements in the early detection and treatment of HCC.

7 AI-based multi-modal techniques

AI-based multi-modal techniques are swiftly ascending to prominence in the realm of medical imaging, attributed to its extraordinary ability to amplify diagnostic accuracy and forecast outcomes. AI-based multi-modal model integrates multiple modalities, such as medical imaging data, Electronic Health Records (EHR) and clinical parameters, thereby substantially enhancing the efficacy of AI algorithms. AI-based multi-modal models have proven successful in predicting treatment responses, evaluating survival rates, and staging a multitude of diseases. Such techniques have been deployed in a plethora of studies pertaining to liver imaging applications, yielding encouraging results. The continued exploration and refinement of these techniques hold great promise for the future of medical imaging and patient care.

7.1 Segmentation of liver and liver tumors

Table 8 encapsulates a summary of studies that evaluate AI-based multi-modal models for the segmentation of liver and liver tumors. Among the various studies, the most remarkable performance was demonstrated by Hille et al. (173). They explored the SWTR-Unet model using a combination of 61,440 MRI images and 189,600 CT images for the segmentation of both the liver and hepatic lesions. The proposed multi-modal model achieved Dice coefficients of 0.98 and 0.81 for the segmentation of the liver and hepatic lesions, respectively.

7.2 Diagnosis of HCC

AI-based multi-modal models offer a comprehensive and robust approach to HCC diagnosis, enabling disease prediction, classification, treatment response prediction, survival rate determination, and disease staging. The outcomes of studies evaluating AI-based multi-modal models for HCC diagnosis are summarized in Table 9.

In 2020, Menegotto et al. (176) utilized a DCNN for HCC diagnosis, incorporating CT data and various EHR parameters. These parameters encompassed demographic factors, clinical history, laboratory test results, and other pertinent medical information. The model achieved accurate HCC diagnosis by considering 20 unique EHR parameters, highlighting the potential of integrating diverse clinical data for enhanced disease identification. Subsequently, they (177) developed an Xception CNN model using CT data and EHR parameters for HCC diagnosis. This method accurately detected HCC, demonstrating the potential of combining various modalities for improved HCC identification.

Zhen et al. (161) developed a multi-modal model that combines Google’s Inception-ResNetV2 CNN with an autoencoder neural network. This model was used to diagnose HCC using MRI data and clinical parameters, including age, gender, tumor markers, liver function, and other relevant factors. The study confirmed the potential of combining medical imaging and clinical data to improve HCC diagnosis, emphasizing the importance of such techniques in enhancing healthcare outcomes.

In 2021, Gao et al. (118) employed a multi-modal model based on the VGG16 architecture to detect HCC in CT images. The study aimed to determine the model’s accuracy in detecting HCC by incorporating eight EHR parameters, including age, gender, platelet count, bilirubin levels, tumor markers, and hepatitis B virus status. The research findings demonstrated the capacity of multi-modal DL to accurately identify HCC. This study underscores the potential of ML algorithms in assisting the early detection and diagnosis of HCC, which may lead to improved patient outcomes. Li et al. (179) investigated a ML-based multi-modal model using three-phase CEUS data from 266 patients and a radiologist’s score for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy when differentiating between atypical Hepatocellular Carcinoma (aHCC) and Focal Nodular Hyperplasia (FNH). The proposed model achieved the highest AUC of 0.93 in aHCC and FNH differentiation.

In 2022, Liu et al. (180) proposed a DL model to detect malignancy by combining clinical parameters and CEUS data from 303 patients. The model achieved the best performance with AUC values of 0.969 and 0.957 and accuracies of 96% and 94% in the IntraVenous (IV) and ExtraVenous (EV) groups, respectively. Further research is necessary to identify the optimal combination of modalities and variables for specific medical tasks. The development of standardized protocols and datasets is critical to facilitate the comparison and reproducibility of multi-modal AI models in medical image analysis.

7.3 Prognostication of HCC

A multitude of studies have explored the use of AI-based multi-modal models for prognostication of HCC. The insights from these studies are compiled in Table 10. Among these, a significant contribution was made by Sun et al. (183), who implemented a hybrid model combining GhostNet and CNN models. This integrated model leveraged CT data and clinical parameters to predict the response of TACE treatment in HCC patients. The proposed method exhibited remarkable performance, achieving an accuracy of 98% and an AUC of 0.98. This model demonstrated its potential in predicting TACE treatment responses, thereby assisting healthcare providers in devising personalized treatment plans and making informed decisions. This approach shows promise in improving patient outcomes and raising the bar in clinical practice.

8 Challenges and future directions

In the past decade, AI models’ application in medical imaging for HCC diagnosis and prediction has emerged as a significant research area. While individual medical imaging methods such as US, CT, and MRI have been explored (205208), there is a lack of comprehensive reviews focusing on AI-based models using both single and multi-modal modalities. This study aims to fill that gap, reviewing AI models developed for HCC diagnosis and prediction using both single and multi-modal methods from January 2010 to March 2024.

Despite AI-based diagnostic models not significantly improving overall diagnostic accuracy for pathologists, they have shown increased precision within specific subgroups. However, several challenges must be addressed before integrating these models into clinical workflows. The efficacy of AI models depends on both the models’ accuracy and the quality of the datasets used. Factors such as biases, mislabeling, lack of standardization, and missing data can undermine these datasets. Overfitting and spectrum biases are prevalent issues in AI-based medical imaging models. Therefore, the need for standardized methods for AI-based data analysis and comprehensive strategies to tackle missing data is evident.

AI tools intended for medical applications could be categorized as medical devices and must adhere to pertinent regulations. Both the FDA and the European Commission have initiated plans to tackle this issue. Intellectual property concerns, particularly those associated with post-marketing modifications, could pose safety risks. The performance of AI models is intimately linked to the training dataset. The importance of large datasets is paramount, and the promotion of data sharing is necessary, which brings forth ethical and privacy considerations. The clinical performance of AI and the requirement for post-approval validation are significant issues. The development of explainable AI models is vital for securing clinicians’ trust and reliance on AI-based CAD systems. Customized prospective clinical trials are indispensable to fully comprehend the role of AI in HCC management.

Looking ahead, the integration of AI in HCC management presents an exciting frontier in medical science. As we continue to refine AI models and address the challenges, we move closer to a future where AI plays a pivotal role in personalized patient care. The potential of AI to analyze vast amounts of data and make precise predictions can lead to early detection and more effective treatment strategies for HCC. This not only improves patient outcomes but also paves the way for a new era in healthcare, where technology and human expertise work hand in hand for the betterment of patient care.

Several strategies are essential for the future of AI in HCC diagnosis and prediction. First, the development of standardized methods for AI-based data analysis and comprehensive strategies to handle missing data are crucial. Second, universal approaches to handle missing data and improve data quality are vital for enhancing the robustness and reliability of DL-based diagnostic tools. Promoting data sharing initiatives can facilitate the availability of large, diverse datasets necessary for training and validating DL models.

In addition to the aforementioned strategies, the exploration of advanced technologies such as transfer learning can further enhance the role of AI in HCC diagnosis and prediction. This technology can adapt pre-trained DL models to new tasks with limited labeled data. This addresses the challenge of acquiring extensive datasets in medical imaging, a common hurdle in the healthcare sector. Federated Learning (FL) is emerging as a transformative trend in healthcare. It enables a collaborative approach to ML development across multiple institutions, eliminating the need for direct data sharing. This innovative method involves the exchange of model parameters only, thereby ensuring the privacy of individual datasets. In the context of liver cancer, where patient data is both sensitive and heavily regulated, FL offers a unique advantage. It allows for the integration of fragmented healthcare data sources while preserving privacy. This enhances the scope and accuracy of ML models, making them more effective and reliable. As such, FL is poised to become an invaluable tool for future research and clinical implementation in liver cancer treatment. It offers the potential to significantly advance patient care, marking a new era in the field of liver cancer treatment.

The development of explainable AI models is another critical step towards earning the trust and reliance of clinicians on AI-based CAD systems. The synergy of researchers, clinicians, and policymakers is a cornerstone in propelling innovation and setting the gold standard for the application of AI techniques in liver cancer care. A comprehensive approach is required to augment AI techniques for HCC diagnosis and management. This involves addressing key aspects such as interpretability, accuracy, data integration, ethical considerations, and validation processes. By tackling these areas, we can tap into the full potential of AI technology, leading to a revolution in HCC diagnosis and prediction. Customized prospective clinical trials are paramount to gain a complete understanding of the role of AI in HCC management. Regulatory bodies like the FDA and the European Commission have kick-started plans to address the regulatory compliance of AI-based diagnostic tools. These plans demand further development and implementation. The challenges and future directions underscore the intricacy of incorporating AI in HCC diagnosis and prediction. However, with persistent research and development, AI holds the promise to bring about a paradigm shift in this field.

9 Conclusions

This paper offers an exhaustive exploration of AI-driven models for the diagnosis and prediction of HCC, leveraging both medical imaging data and additional clinical information. The potential of AI-based methodologies in diagnosing HCC is vast, yet several hurdles need to be overcome before they can be seamlessly incorporated into clinical workflows to enhance patient diagnosis and treatment outcomes. Despite the presence of challenges such as data quality, model overfitting, regulatory compliance, and the necessity for explainable AI models, the potential advantages are considerable. AI models have the capacity to augment precision within specific patient subgroups. Furthermore, the development of standardized methods for data analysis can significantly bolster the robustness and reliability of these tools. Navigating these intricacies, it becomes evident that a multi-pronged strategy is essential to fully harness the transformative power of AI technology in revolutionizing HCC diagnosis and treatment. With ongoing research and development, AI stands poised to usher in a paradigm shift in the field of HCC diagnosis and prediction, ultimately leading to enhanced patient outcomes and heralding a new epoch in healthcare.

Statements

Author contributions

LW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MF: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. AA: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Copilot for reference formatting and proof reading of this work.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

  • 1

    Shirono T Niizeki T Iwamoto H Shimose S Suzuki H Kawaguchi T et al . Therapeutic outcomes and prognostic factors of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A data mining analysis. J Clin Med. (2021) 10:987. doi: 10.3390/jcm10050987

  • 2

    Affo S Yu LX Schwabe RF . The role of cancer-associated fibroblasts and fibrosis in liver cancer. Annu Rev Pathol. (2017) 12:153–86. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pathol-052016-100322

  • 3

    Rehani MM Szczykutowicz TP Zaidi H . CT is still not a low-dose imaging modality. Med Phys. (2020) 47:293–6. doi: 10.1002/mp.14000

  • 4

    Feng Z Zhao H Guan S Wang W Rong P . Diagnostic performance of MRI using extracellular contrast agents versus gadoxetic acid for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver International: Off J Int Assoc Study Liver. (2021) 41:1117–28. doi: 10.1111/liv.14850

  • 5

    Tharwat M . Ultrasonography of the liver in healthy and diseased camels (camelus dromedaries). J Vet Med Sci. (2020) 82:19. doi: 10.1292/jvms.19-0690

  • 6

    Cho HJ Kim B Kim HJ Huh J Cheong JY . Liver stiffness measured by MR elastography is a predictor of early HCC recurrence after treatment. Eur Radiol. (2020) 30:4182–92. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06792-y

  • 7

    Virmani J Kumar V Kalra N Khandelwal N . Neural network ensemble based CAD system for focal liver lesions from B-mode ultrasound. J Digit Imaging. (2014) 27:520–37. doi: 10.1007/s10278-014-9685-0

  • 8

    Xu Y Cai M Lin L Zhang Y Tong R . PA-ResSeg: a phase attention residual network for liver tumor segmentation from multi-phase CT images. Med Phys. (2021) 48:3752–66. doi: 10.1002/mp.14922

  • 9

    Mehltretter J Fratila R Benrimoh D Kapelner A Turecki G . Differential treatment benefit prediction for treatment selection in depression: a deep learning analysis of stard and comed data. Comput Psychiatry. (2020) 4:115. doi: 10.1162/cpsy_a_00029

  • 10

    Lanhong Y Zheyuan Z Elif K Cemal Y Temel T Ulas B . A review of deep learning and radiomics approaches for pancreatic cancer diagnosis from medical imaging. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. (2023) 39:436337. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000966

  • 11

    Ye Y Zhang N Wu D Huang B Cai X Ruan X et al . Deep learning combined with radiologist’s intervention achieves accurate segmentation of hepatocellular carcinoma in dual-phase magnetic resonance images. BioMed Res Int. (2024) 2024:9267554. doi: 10.1155/2024/9267554

  • 12

    Xin H Zhang Y Lai Q Liao N Zhang J Liu Y et al . Automatic origin prediction of liver metastases via hierarchical artificial-intelligence system trained on multiphasic CT data: a retrospective, multicentre study. EClinicalMedicine. (2024) 69:102464. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102464

  • 13

    Urhuţ MC Săndulescu LD Streba CT Mămuleanu M Ciocâlteu A Cazacu SM et al . Diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence model based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound in patients with liver lesions: A comparative study with clinicians. Diagnost (Basel). (2023) 13:3387. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13213387

  • 14

    Hu X Li X Zhao W Cai J Wang P . Multimodal imaging findings of primary liver clear cell carcinoma: a case presentation. Front Med (Lausanne). (2024) 11:1408967. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1408967

  • 15

    Wang Q Zhou Y Yang H Zhang J Zeng X Tan Y . MRI-based clinical-radiomics nomogram model for predicting microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Med Phys. (2024) 51:4673–86. doi: 10.1002/mp.17087

  • 16

    Wu Y White GM Cornelius T Gowdar I Ansari MH Supanich MP et al . Deep learning LI-RADS grading system based on contrast enhanced multiphase MRI for differentiation between LR-3 and LR-4/LR-5 liver tumors. Ann Transl Med. (2020) 8:701. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.12.151

  • 17

    Xian GM . An identification method of Malignant and benign liver tumors from ultrasonography based on GLCM texture features and fuzzy SVM. Expert System App. (2010) 37:6737–41. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.067

  • 18

    Mittal D Kumar V Saxena SC Khandelwal N Kalra N . Neural network based focal liver lesion diagnosis using ultrasound images. Comput Med Imaging Graph. (2011) 35:315–23. doi: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2011.01.007

  • 19

    Hwang YN Lee JH Kim GY Jiang YY Kim SM . Classification of focal liver lesions on ultrasound images by extracting hybrid textural features and using an artificial neural network. BioMed Mater Eng. (2015) 26 Suppl 1:S1599–611. doi: 10.3233/BME-151459

  • 20

    Hassan TM Elmogy M Sallam ES . Diagnosis of focal liver diseases based on deep learning technique for ultrasound images. Arab J Sci Eng. (2017) 42:3127–40. doi: 10.1007/s13369-016-2387-9

  • 21

    Bharti P Mittal D Ananthasivan R . Preliminary study of chronic liver classification on ultrasound images using an ensemble model. Ultrason Imaging. (2018) 40:357–79. doi: 10.1177/0161734618787447

  • 22

    Schmauch B Herent P Jehanno P Dehaene O Saillard C Aubé C et al . Diagnosis of focal liver lesions from ultrasound using deep learning. Diagn Interv Imaging. (2019) 100:227–33. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2019.02.009

  • 23

    Yang Q Wei J Hao X Kong D Yu X Jiang T et al . Improving B-mode ultrasound diagnostic performance for focal liver lesions using deep learning: A multicentre study. EBioMedicine. (2020) 56:102777. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102777

  • 24

    Brehar R Mitrea DA Vancea F Marita T Nedevschi S Lupsor-Platon M et al . Comparison of deep-learning and conventional machine-learning methods for the automatic recognition of the hepatocellular carcinoma areas from ultrasound images. Sensors (Basel). (2020) 20:3085. doi: 10.3390/s20113085

  • 25

    Mao B Ma J Duan S Xia Y Tao Y Zhang L . Preoperative classification of primary and metastatic liver cancer via machine learning-based ultrasound radiomics. Eur Radiol. (2021) 31:4576–86. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07562-6

  • 26

    Ryu H Shin SY Lee JY Lee KM Kang HJ Yi J . Joint segmentation and classification of hepatic lesions in ultrasound images using deep learning. Eur Radiol. (2021) 31:8733–42. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07850-9

  • 27

    Tiyarattanachai T Apiparakoon T Marukatat S Sukcharoen S Geratikornsupuk N Anukulkarnkusol N et al . Development and validation of artificial intelligence to detect and diagnose liver lesions from ultrasound images. PloS One. (2021) 16:e0252882. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252882

  • 28

    Xi IL Wu J Guan J Zhang PJ Horii SC Soulen MC et al . Deep learning for differentiation of benign and Malignant solid liver lesions on ultrasonography. Abdom Radiol (NY). (2021) 46:534–43. doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02564-w

  • 29

    Marya NB Powers PD Fujii-Lau L Abu Dayyeh BK Gleeson FC Chen S et al . Application of artificial intelligence using a novel EUS-based convolutional neural network model to identify and distinguish benign and Malignant hepatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. (2021) 93:1121–30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.08.024

  • 30

    Ren S Li Q Liu S Qi Q Duan S Mao B et al . Clinical value of machine learning-based ultrasomics in preoperative differentiation between hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A multicenter study. Front Oncol. (2021) 11:749137. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.749137

  • 31

    Ren S Qi Q Liu S Duan S Mao B Chang Z et al . Preoperative prediction of pathological grading of hepatocellular carcinoma using machine learning-based ultrasomics: A multicenter study. Eur J Radiol. (2021) 143:109891. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109891

  • 32

    Nishida N Yamakawa M Shiina T Mekada Y Nishida M Sakamoto N et al . Artificial intelligence (AI) models for the ultrasonographic diagnosis of liver tumors and comparison of diagnostic accuracies between AI and human experts. J Gastroenterol. (2022) 57:309–21. doi: 10.1007/s00535-022-01849-9

  • 33

    Zhang WB Hou SZ Chen YL Mao F Dong Y Chen JG et al . Deep learning for approaching hepatocellular carcinoma ultrasound screening dilemma: identification of α-fetoprotein-negative hepatocellular carcinoma from focal liver lesion found in high-risk patients. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:862297. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.862297

  • 34

    Wu JP Ding WZ Wang YL Liu S Zhang XQ Yang Q et al . Radiomics analysis of ultrasound to predict recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after microwave ablation. Int J Hyperthermia. (2022) 39:595604. doi: 10.1080/02656736.2022.2062463

  • 35

    Jeon SK Lee JM Joo I Yoon JH Lee G . Two-dimensional convolutional neural network using quantitative US for noninvasive assessment of hepatic steatosis in NAFLD. Radiology. (2023) 307:e221510. doi: 10.1148/radiol.221510

  • 36

    Streba CT Ionescu M Gheonea DI Sandulescu L Ciurea T Saftoiu A et al . Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography parameters in neural network diagnosis of liver tumors. World J Gastroenterol. (2012) 18:4427–34. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i32.4427

  • 37

    Wu K Chen X Ding M . Deep learning based classification of focal liver lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Optik. (2014) 125:4057–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijleo.2014.01.114

  • 38

    Gatos I Tsantis S Spiliopoulos S Skouroliakou A Theotokas I Zoumpoulis P et al . A new automated quantification algorithm for the detection and evaluation of focal liver lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Med Phys. (2015) 42:3948–59. doi: 10.1118/1.4921753

  • 39

    Kondo S Takagi K Nishida M Iwai T Kudo Y Ogawa K et al . Computer-aided diagnosis of focal liver lesions using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with perflubutane microbubbles. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. (2017) 36:1427–37. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2017.2659734

  • 40

    Guo LH Wang D Qian YY Zheng X Zhao CK Li XL et al . A two-stage multi-view learning framework based computer-aided diagnosis of liver tumors with contrast enhanced ultrasound images. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. (2018) 69:343–54. doi: 10.3233/CH-170275

  • 41

    Ta CN Kono Y Eghtedari M Oh YT Robbin ML Barr RG et al . Focal liver lesions: computer-aided diagnosis by using contrast-enhanced US cine recordings. Radiology. (2018) 286:1062–71. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170365

  • 42

    Pan F Huang Q Li X . Classification of liver tumors with CEUS based on 3D-CNN. Int Confer Adv Rob Mechat. (2019), 845–9. doi: 10.1109/ICARM.2019.8834190

  • 43

    Huang Q Pan F Li W Yuan F Hu H Huang J et al . Differential diagnosis of atypical hepatocellular carcinoma in contrast-enhanced ultrasound using spatio-temporal diagnostic semantics. IEEE J BioMed Health Inform. (2020) 24:2860–9. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2020.2977937

  • 44

    Căleanu CD Sîrbu CL Simion G . Deep neural architectures for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) focal liver lesions automated diagnosis. Sensors (Basel). (2021) 21:4126. doi: 10.3390/s21124126

  • 45

    Hu HT Wang W Chen LD Ruan SM Chen SL Li X et al . Artificial intelligence assists identifying Malignant versus benign liver lesions using contrast-enhanced ultrasound. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2021) 36:2875–83. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15522

  • 46

    Wang M Fu F Zheng B Bai Y Wu Q Wu J et al . Development of an AI system for accurately diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma from computed tomography imaging data. Br J Cancer. (2021) 125:1111–21. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01511-w

  • 47

    Turco S Tiyarattanachai T Ebrahimkheil K Eisenbrey J Kamaya A Mischi M et al . Interpretable machine learning for characterization of focal liver lesions by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. (2022) 69:1670–81. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2022.3161719

  • 48

    Zhou Z Xia T Zhang T Du M Zhong J Huang Y et al . Prediction of preoperative microvascular invasion by dynamic radiomic analysis based on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Abdom Radiol (NY). (2024) 49:611–24. doi: 10.1007/s00261-023-04102-w

  • 49

    Li W Jia F Hu Q . Automatic segmentation of liver tumor in CT images with deep convolutional neural networks. J Comput Commun. (2015) 3:146–51. doi: 10.4236/jcc.2015.311023

  • 50

    Vivanti R Szeskin A Lev-Cohain N Sosna J Joskowicz L . Automatic detection of new tumors and tumor burden evaluation in longitudinal liver CT scan studies. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. (2017) 12:1945–57. doi: 10.1007/s11548-017-1660-z

  • 51

    Sun C Guo S Zhang H Li J Chen M Ma S et al . Automatic segmentation of liver tumors from multiphase contrast-enhanced CT images based on FCNS. Artif Intell Med. (2017) 83:5866. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2017.03.008

  • 52

    Das A Acharya UR Panda SS Sabut S . Deep learning based liver cancer detection using watershed transform and gaussian mixture model techniques. Cogn Syst Res. (2019) 54:165–75. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.12.009

  • 53

    Ibragimov B Toesca D Chang D Koong A Xing L . Combining deep learning with anatomical analysis for segmentation of the portal vein for liver SBRT planning. Phys Med Biol. (2017) 62:8943–58. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa9262

  • 54

    Chlebus G Meine H Moltz JH Schenk A . Neural network-based automatic liver tumor segmentation with random forestbased candidate fltering. arXiv:170600842 [cs]. (2017). doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1706.00842

  • 55

    Tang W Zou D Yang S Shi J . DSL: automatic liver segmentation with faster R-CNN and deepLab. In: KůrkováVManolopoulosYHammerBIliadisLMaglogiannisI, editors. Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2018. ICANN 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol. vol 11140 . Springer, Cham (2018). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01421-6_14

  • 56

    Gibson E Giganti F Hu Y Bonmati E Bandula S Gurusamy K et al . Automatic multi-organ segmentation on abdominal CT with dense V-networks. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. (2018) 37:1822–34. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2018.2806309

  • 57

    Li X Chen H Qi X Dou Q Fu CW Heng PA . H-DenseUNet: hybrid densely connected UNet for liver and tumor segmentation from CT volumes. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. (2018) 37:2663–74. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2018.2845918

  • 58

    Enokiya Y Iwamoto Y Chen YW . Automatic liver segmentation using U-Net with wasserstein GANs. JOIG. (2018) 6:152–9. doi: 10.18178/joig.6.2.152-159

  • 59

    Chen Y Wang K Liao X Qian Y Wang Q Yuan Z et al . Channel-Unet: A spatial channel-wise convolutional neural network for liver and tumors segmentation. Front Genet. (2019) 10:1110. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01110

  • 60

    Song LI Geoffrey K.F. TSO Kaijian HE . Bottleneck feature supervised U-Net for pixel-wise liver and tumor segmentation. Expert Syst Appl. (2020) 145:113131. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.113131

  • 61

    Jin Q Meng Z Sun C Cui H Su R . RA-UNet: A hybrid deep attention-aware network to extract liver and tumor in CT scans. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. (2020) 8:605132. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.605132

  • 62

    Tran S-T Cheng C-H Liu D-G . A Multiple Layer U-Net, Un-Net, for Liver and Liver Tumor Segmentation in CT Vol. 9. Piscataway, NJ, USA: IEEE Access (2021) p. 3752–64.

  • 63

    Zhang C Ai D Feng C Fan J Song H Yang J . (2020). Dial/Hybrid cascade 3DResUNet for liver and tumor segmentation, in: Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing, ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp. 92–6.

  • 64

    Sakashita N Shirai K Ueda Y Ono A Teshima T . Convolutional neural network-based automatic liver delineation on contrast-enhanced and non-contrast-enhanced CT images for radiotherapy planning. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. (2020) 25:981–6. doi: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.09.005

  • 65

    Abdalbagi F Viriri S Mohammed MT . Bata-Unet: deep learning model for liver segmentation. Signal Image Processing: Int J (SIPIJ). (2020) 11, 227196252. doi: 10.5121/sipij.2020.11505

  • 66

    Affane A Kucharski A Chapuis P Freydier S Lebre M-A Vacavant A et al . Segmentation of liver anatomy by combining 3D U-net approaches. Appl Sci. (2021) 11:4895. doi: 10.3390/app11114895

  • 67

    Chi JN Han XY Wu CD Wang H Ji P . X-Net: Multi-branch UNet-like network for liver and tumor segmentation from 3D abdominal CT scans. Neurocomputing. (2021) 459:8196. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.06.021

  • 68

    Zhang Y Peng C Peng L Xu Y Lin L Tong R et al . DeepRecS: from RECIST diameters to precise liver tumor segmentation. IEEE J BioMed Health Inform. (2022) 26:614–25. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2021.3091900

  • 69

    Zhao Z Ma Z Liu Y Zeng Z Chow PK . Multi-slice dense-sparse learning for efficient liver and tumor segmentation. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. (2021) 2021:3582–5. doi: 10.1109/EMBC46164.2021.9629698

  • 70

    Wardhana G Naghibi H Sirmacek B Abayazid M . Toward reliable automatic liver and tumor segmentation using convolutional neural network based on 2.5D models. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. (2021) 16:4151. doi: 10.1007/s11548-020-02292-y

  • 71

    Han L Chen YH Li JM Zhong BW Lei YZ Sun MH . Liver segmentation with 2.5D perpendicular UNets. Comput Electrical Eng. (2021) 91:107118. doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107118

  • 72

    Liu Z Han K Wang Z Zhang J Song Y Yao X et al . Automatic liver segmentation from abdominal CT volumes using improved convolution neural networks. Multimedia Syst. (2021) 27:111–24. doi: 10.1007/s00530-020-00709-x

  • 73

    Fan T Wang G Wang X Li Y Wang H . MSN-Net: A multi-scale context nested U-Net for liver segmentation. SIViP. (2021) 15:1089–97. doi: 10.1007/s11760-020-01835-9

  • 74

    Islam M Khan KN Khan MS . (2021). Evaluation of preprocessing techniques for U-net based automated liver segmentation, in: 2021 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAI), Islamabad, Pakistan. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp. 187–92. doi: 10.1109/ICAI52203.2021.9445204

  • 75

    Araújo JDL da Cruz LB Diniz JOB Ferreira JL Silva AC de Paiva AC et al . Liver segmentation from computed tomography images using cascade deep learning. Comput Biol Med. (2022) 140:105095. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105095

  • 76

    Senthilvelan J Jamshidi N . A pipeline for automated deep learning liver segmentation (PADLLS) from contrast enhanced CT exams. Sci Rep. (2022) 12:15794. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-20108-8

  • 77

    Jeong JG Choi S Kim YJ Lee WS Kim KG . Deep 3D attention CLSTM U-Net based automated liver segmentation and volumetry for the liver transplantation in abdominal CT volumes. Sci Rep. (2022) 12:6370. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09978-0

  • 78

    Pettit RW Marlatt BB Corr SJ Havelka J Rana A . nnU-net deep learning method for segmenting parenchyma and determining liver volume from computed tomography images. Ann Surg Open. (2022) 3:e155. doi: 10.1097/as9.0000000000000155

  • 79

    Khoshkhabar M Meshgini S Afrouzian R Danishvar S . Automatic liver tumor segmentation from CT images using graph convolutional network. Sensors (Basel). (2023) 23:7561. doi: 10.3390/s23177561

  • 80

    Ananda S Jain RK Li Y Iwamoto Y Han XH Kanasaki S et al . A boundary-enhanced liver segmentation network for multi-phase CT images with unsupervised domain adaptation. Bioeng (Basel). (2023) 10:899. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10080899

  • 81

    Jiang L Ou J Liu R Zou Y Xie T Xiao H et al . RMAU-Net: Residual Multi-Scale Attention U-Net For liver and tumor segmentation in CT images. Comput Biol Med. (2023) 158:106838. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106838

  • 82

    Özcan F Uçan ON Karaçam S Tunçman D . Fully automatic liver and tumor segmentation from CT image using an AIM-unet. Bioeng (Basel). (2023) 10:215. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10020215

  • 83

    Wang J Zhang X Guo L Shi C Tamura S . Multi-scale attention and deep supervision-based 3D UNet for automatic liver segmentation from CT. Math Biosci Eng. (2023) 20:1297–316. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023059

  • 84

    Li J Liu K Hu Y Zhang H Heidari AA Chen H et al . Eres-UNet++: Liver CT image segmentation based on high-efficiency channel attention and Res-UNet+. Comput Biol Med. (2023) 158:106501. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106501

  • 85

    Yang Z Li S . Dual-path network for liver and tumor segmentation in CT images using swin transformer encoding approach. Curr Med Imaging. (2023) 19:1114–23. doi: 10.2174/1573405619666221014114953

  • 86

    Song Z Wu H Chen W Slowik A . Improving automatic segmentation of liver tumor images using a deep learning model. Heliyon. (2024) 10:e28538. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28538

  • 87

    Yang S Liang Y Wu S Sun P Chen Z . SADSNet: A robust 3D synchronous segmentation network for liver and liver tumors based on spatial attention mechanism and deep supervision. J Xray Sci Technol. (2024) 32:707–23. doi: 10.3233/XST-230312

  • 88

    Huang S Luo J Ou Y Shen W Pang Y Nie X et al . SD-Net: a semi-supervised double-cooperative network for liver segmentation from computed tomography (CT) images. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2024) 150:79. doi: 10.1007/s00432-023-05564-7

  • 89

    Guo S Wang H Agaian S Han L Song X . LRENet: a location-related enhancement network for liver lesions in CT images. Phys Med Biol. (2024) 69, 035019. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad1d6b

  • 90

    Dou Q Chen H Jin Y Yu L Qin J Heng PA . 3D deeply supervised network for automatic liver segmentation from CT volumes. In: OurselinSJoskowiczLSabuncuMUnalGWellsW, editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2016. MICCAI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol. vol 9901 . Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_18

  • 91

    Ben-Cohen A Klang E Kerpel A Konen E Amitai MM Greenspan H . Fully convolutional network and sparsity-based dictionary learning for liver lesion detection in CT examinations. Neurocomputing. (2018) 275:1585–94. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.10.001

  • 92

    Lee Sg Bae JS Kim H Kim JH Yoon S . Liver lesion detection from weakly-labeled multi-phase CT volumes with a grouped single shot MultiBox detector. In: FrangiASchnabelJDavatzikosCAlberola-LópezCFichtingerG, editors. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2018. MICCAI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol. vol 11071 . Springer, Cham (2018). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00934-2_77

  • 93

    Gruber N Antholzer S Jaschke W Kremser C Haltmeier M . (2019). A joint deep learning approach for automated liver and tumor segmentation, in: 2019 13th International conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA), Bordeaux, France. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp. 15. doi: 10.1109/SampTA45681.2019.9030909

  • 94

    Yu W Fang B Liu Y Gao M Zheng S Wang Y . (2019). Liver vessels segmentation based on 3D residual U-NET, in: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Taipei, Taiwan. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp. 250–4.

  • 95

    Budak Ü Guo Y Tanyildizi E Şengür A . Cascaded deep convolutional encoder-decoder neural networks for efficient liver tumor segmentation. Med Hypotheses. (2020) 134:109431. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2019.109431

  • 96

    Almotairi S Kareem G Aouf M Almutairi B Salem MA . Liver tumor segmentation in CT scans using modified SegNet. Sensors (Basel). (2020) 20:1516. doi: 10.3390/s20051516

  • 97

    Hettihewa K Kobchaisawat T Tanpowpong N Chalidabhongse TH . MANet: a multi-attention network for automatic liver tumor segmentation in computed tomography (CT) imaging. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:20098. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46580-4

  • 98

    Shui Y Wang Z Liu B Wang W Fu S Li Y . A three-path network with multi-scale selective feature fusion, edge-inspiring and edge-guiding for liver tumor segmentation. Comput Biol Med. (2024) 168:107841. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107841

  • 99

    Suganeshwari G Appadurai JP Kavin BP, C K Lai WC . En-DeNet based segmentation and gradational modular network classification for liver cancer diagnosis. Biomedicines. (2023) 11:1309. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11051309

  • 100

    Balasubramanian PK Lai WC Seng GH, C K Selvaraj J . APESTNet with mask R-CNN for liver tumor segmentation and classification. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 15:330. doi: 10.3390/cancers15020330

  • 101

    Liu L Wu K Wang K Han Z Qiu J Zhan Q et al . SEU2-Net: multi-scale U2-Net with SE attention mechanism for liver occupying lesion CT image segmentation. PeerJ Comput Sci. (2024) 10:e1751. doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1751

  • 102

    Xu J Jiang W Wu J Zhang W Zhu Z Xin J et al . Hepatic and portal vein segmentation with dual-stream deep neural network. Med Phys. (2024) 51:5441–56. doi: 10.1002/mp.17090

  • 103

    Zhang H Luo K Deng R Li S Duan S . Deep learning-based CT imaging for the diagnosis of liver tumor. Comput Intell Neurosci. (2022) 2022:3045370. doi: 10.1155/2022/3045370

  • 104

    Xie T Li Y Lin Z Liu X Zhang X Zhang Y et al . Deep learning for fully automated segmentation and volumetry of Couinaud liver segments and future liver remnants shown with CT before major hepatectomy: a validation study of a predictive model. Quant Imaging Med Surg. (2023) 13:3088–103. doi: 10.21037/qims-22-1008

  • 105

    Wesdorp NJ Zeeuw JM Postma SCJ Roor J van Waesberghe JHTM van den Bergh JE et al . Deep learning models for automatic tumor segmentation and total tumor volume assessment in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Eur Radiol Exp. (2023) 7:75. doi: 10.1186/s41747-023-00383-4

  • 106

    Mokrane FZ Lu L Vavasseur A Otal P Peron JM Luk L et al . Radiomics machine-learning signature for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients with indeterminate liver nodules. Eur Radiol. (2020) 30:558–70. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06347-w

  • 107

    Khan AA Narejo GB . Analysis of abdominal computed tomography images for automatic liver cancer diagnosis using image processing algorithm. Curr Med Imaging Rev. (2019) 15:972–82. doi: 10.2174/1573405615666190716122040

  • 108

    Li J Wu Y Shen N Zhang J Chen E Sun J et al . A fully automatic computer-aided diagnosis system for hepatocellular carcinoma using convolutional neural networks. Biocybern BioMed Eng. (2020) 40:238–48. doi: 10.1016/j.bbe.2019.05.008

  • 109

    Shi W Kuang S Cao S Hu B Xie S Chen S et al . Deep learning assisted differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from focal liver lesions: choice of four-phase and three-phase CT imaging protocol. Abdom Radiol (NY). (2020) 45:2688–97. doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02485-8

  • 110

    Yasaka K Akai H Abe O Kiryu S . Deep learning with convolutional neural network for differentiation of liver masses at dynamic contrast-enhanced CT: A preliminary study. Radiology. (2018) 286:887–96. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170706

  • 111

    Todoroki Y Iwamoto Y Lin L Hu H Chen YW . Automatic detection of focal liver lesions in multi-phase CT images using A multi-channel & Multi-scale CNN. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. (2019) 2019:872–5. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2019.8857292

  • 112

    Zhou J Wang W Lei B Ge W Huang Y Zhang L et al . Automatic detection and classification of focal liver lesions based on deep convolutional neural networks: A preliminary study. Front Oncol. (2021) 10:581210. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.581210

  • 113

    Ponnoprat D Inkeaw P Chaijaruwanich J Traisathit P Sripan P Inmutto N et al . Classification of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on multi-phase CT scans. Med Biol Eng Comput. (2020) 58:2497–515. doi: 10.1007/s11517-020-02229-2

  • 114

    Krishan A Mittal D . Ensembled liver cancer detection and classification using CT images. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. (2021) 235:232–44. doi: 10.1177/0954411920971888

  • 115

    Manjunath RV Ghanshala A Kwadiki K . Deep learning algorithm performance evaluation in detection and classification of liver disease using CT images. Multimed Tools Appl. (2023) 15:118. doi: 10.1007/s11042-023-15627-z

  • 116

    Phan DV Chan CL Li AA Chien TY Nguyen VC . Liver cancer prediction in a viral hepatitis cohort: A deep learning approach. Int J Cancer. (2020) 147:2871–8. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33245

  • 117

    Wang W Wu SS Zhang JC Xian MF Huang H Li W et al . Preoperative pathological grading of hepatocellular carcinoma using ultrasomics of contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Acad Radiol. (2021) 28:1094–101. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.05.033

  • 118

    Gao R Zhao S Aishanjiang K Cai H Wei T Zhang Y et al . Deep learning for differential diagnosis of Malignant hepatic tumors based on multi-phase contrastenhanced CT and clinical data. J Hematol Oncol. (2021) 14:154. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01167-2

  • 119

    Shah S Mishra R Szczurowska A Guziński M . Non-invasive multi-channel deep learning convolutional neural networks for localization and classification of common hepatic lesions. Pol J Radiol. (2021) 86:e440–8. doi: 10.5114/pjr.2021.108257

  • 120

    Lee H Lee H Hong H Bae H Lim JS Kim J . Classification of focal liver lesions in CT images using convolutional neural networks with lesion information augmented patches and synthetic data augmentation. Med Phys. (2021) 48:5029–46. doi: 10.1002/mp.15118

  • 121

    Kim DW Lee G Kim SY Ahn G Lee JG Lee SS et al . Deep learning-based algorithm to detect primary hepatic Malignancy in multiphase CT of patients at high risk for HCC. Eur Radiol. (2021) 31:7047–57. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07803-2

  • 122

    Nakai H Fujimoto K Yamashita R Sato T Someya Y Taura K et al . Convolutional neural network for classifying primary liver cancer based on triple-phase CT and tumor marker information: a pilot study. Jpn J Radiol. (2021) 39:690702. doi: 10.1007/s11604-021-01106-8

  • 123

    Zhao X Liang P Yong L Jia Y Gao J . Radiomics study for differentiating focal hepatic lesions based on unenhanced CT images. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:650797. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.650797

  • 124

    Naaqvi Z Akbar S Hassan SA Ul Ain Q . (2022). Detection of Liver Cancer through Computed Tomography Images using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, in: 2022 2nd International Conference on Digital Futures and Transformative Technologies (ICoDT2), Rawalpindi, Pakistan. pp. 16. doi: 10.1109/ICoDT255437.2022.9787429

  • 125

    Li S Yuan L Lu T Yang X Ren W Wang L et al . Deep learning imaging reconstruction of reduced-dose 40 keV virtual monoenergetic imaging for early detection of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Eur J Radiol. (2023) 168:111128. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111128

  • 126

    Mulé S Ronot M Ghosn M Sartoris R Corrias G Reizine E et al . Automated CT LI-RADS v2018 scoring of liver observations using machine learning: A multivendor, multicentre retrospective study. JHEP Rep. (2023) 5:100857. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2023.100857

  • 127

    Kang HJ Lee JM Ahn C Bae JS Han S Kim SW et al . Low dose of contrast agent and low radiation liver computed tomography with deep-learning-based contrast boosting model in participants at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Eur Radiol. (2023) 33:3660–70. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09520-4

  • 128

    Lee IC Tsai YP Lin YC Chen TC Yen CH Chiu NC et al . A hierarchical fusion strategy of deep learning networks for detection and segmentation of hepatocellular carcinoma from computed tomography images. Cancer Imaging. (2024) 24:43. doi: 10.1186/s40644-024-00686-8

  • 129

    Bilello M Gokturk SB Desser T Napel S Jeffrey RB Jr Beaulieu CF . Automatic detection and classification of hypodense hepatic lesions on contrast-enhanced venous-phase CT. Med Phys. (2004) 31:2584–93. doi: 10.1118/1.1782674

  • 130

    Cannella R Borhani AA Minervini MI Tsung A Furlan A . Evaluation of texture analysis for the differential diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatocellular adenoma on contrast-enhanced CT images. Abdom Radiol (NY). (2019) 44:1323–30. doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1788-5

  • 131

    Peng J Huang J Huang G Zhang J . Predicting the initial treatment response to transarterial chemoembolization in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma by the integration of radiomics and deep learning. Front Oncol. (2021) 11:730282. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.730282

  • 132

    Yang Y Zhou Y Zhou C Ma X . Deep learning radiomics based on contrast enhanced computed tomography predicts microvascular invasion and survival outcome in early stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2022) 48:1068–77. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.11.120

  • 133

    Fu S Lai H Huang M Li Q Liu Y Zhang J et al . Multi-task deep learning network to predict future macrovascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. EClinicalMedicine. (2021) 42:101201. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101201

  • 134

    Pino C Vecchio G Fronda M Calandri M Aldinucci M Spampinato C . TwinLiverNet: Predicting TACE Treatment Outcome from CT scans for Hepatocellular Carcinoma using Deep Capsule Networks. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. (2021) 2021:3039–43. doi: 10.1109/EMBC46164.2021.9630913

  • 135

    Ji G-W Zhu F-P Xu Q Wang K Wu M-Y Tang W-W et al . Machine-learning analysis of contrast-enhanced CT radiomics predicts recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: A multi-institutional study. EBioMedicine. (2019) 50:156–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.10.057

  • 136

    Mao B Zhang L Ning P Ding F Wu F Lu G et al . Preoperative prediction for pathological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma via machine learning-based radiomics. Eur Radiol. (2020) 30:6924–32. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07056-5

  • 137

    Wei J Jiang H Zeng M Wang M Niu M Gu D et al . Prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma via deep learning: A multi-center and prospective validation study. Cancers (Basel). (2021) 13:2368. doi: 10.3390/cancers13102368

  • 138

    Wang F Chen Q Chen Y Zhu Y Zhang Y Cao D et al . A novel multimodal deep learning model for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion and outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2023) 49:156–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.08.036

  • 139

    Hossain MSA Gul S Chowdhury MEH Khan MS Sumon MSI Bhuiyan EH et al . Deep learning framework for liver segmentation from T1-weighted MRI images. Sensors (Basel). (2023) 23:8890. doi: 10.3390/s23218890

  • 140

    Gross M Huber S Arora S Ze’evi T Haider S Kucukkaya A et al . Automated MRI liver segmentation for anatomical segmentation, liver volumetry, and the extraction of radiomics. Eur Radiol. (2024) 34:5056–65. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10495-5

  • 141

    Masoumi H Behrad A Pourmina MA Roosta A . Automatic liver segmentation in MRI images using an iterative watershed algorithm and artificial neural network. Biomed Signal Process Control. (2012) 7:429–37. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2012.01.002

  • 142

    Le TN Bao PT Huynh HT . Liver tumor segmentation from MR images using 3D fast marching algorithm and single hidden layer feedforward neural network. BioMed Res Int. (2016) 2016:3219068. doi: 10.1155/2016/3219068

  • 143

    Chlebus G Meine H Abolmaali N Schenk A . Automatic liver and tumor segmentation in late-phase MRI using fully convolutional neural networks. Proc CURAC. (2018), 195200. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327732676_Automatic_Liver_and_Tumor_Segmentation_in_Late-Phase_MRI_Using_Fully_Convolutional_Neural_Networks

  • 144

    Wang K Mamidipalli A Retson T Bahrami N Hasenstab K Blansit K et al . Automated CT and MRI liver segmentation and biometry using a generalized convolutional neural network. Radiol Artif Intell. (2019) 1:180022. doi: 10.1148/ryai.2019180022

  • 145

    Xiao X Qiang Y Zhao J Yang X Yang X . Segmentation of liver lesions without contrast agents with radiomics-guided densely UNet-nested GAN. IEEE Access. (2021) 9:2864–78. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3047429

  • 146

    Ivashchenko OV Rijkhorst E-J ter Beek LC Hoetjes NJ Pouw B Nijkamp J et al . A workflow for automated segmentation of the liver surface, hepatic vasculature and biliary tree anatomy from multiphase MR images. Magnetic Resonance Imaging. (2020) 68:5365. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2019.12.008

  • 147

    Liu M Vanguri R Mutasa S Ha R Liu YC Button T et al . Channel width optimized neural networks for liver and vessel segmentation in liver iron quantification. Comput Biol Med. (2020) 122:103798. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103798

  • 148

    Bousabarah K Letzen B Tefera J Savic L Schobert I Schlachter T et al . Automated detection and delineation of hepatocellular carcinoma on multiphasic contrast enhanced MRI using deep learning. Abdom Radiol. (2021) 46:216–25. doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02604-5

  • 149

    Nowak S Mesropyan N Faron A Block W Reuter M Attenberger UI et al . Detection of liver cirrhosis in standard T2-weighted MRI using deep transfer learning. Eur Radiol. (2021) 31:8807–15. doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-07858-1

  • 150

    Zhao J Li D Xiao X Accorsi F Marshall H Cossetto T et al . United adversarial learning for liver tumor segmentation and detection of multi-modality non-contrast MRI. Med Image Anal. (2021) 73:102154. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2021.102154

  • 151

    Zheng R Wang Q Lv S Li C Wang C Chen W et al . Automatic liver tumor segmentation on dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using 4D information: deep learning model based on 3D convolution and convolutional LSTM. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. (2022) 41:2965–76. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2022.3175461

  • 152

    Han X Wu X Wang S Xu L Xu H Zheng D et al . Automated segmentation of liver segment on portal venous phase MR images using a 3D convolutional neural network. Insights Imaging. (2022) 13:26. doi: 10.1186/s13244-022-01163-1

  • 153

    Zbinden L Catucci D Suter Y Berzigotti A Ebner L Christe A et al . Convolutional neural network for automated segmentation of the liver and its vessels on non-contrast T1 vibe Dixon acquisitions. Sci Rep. (2022) 12:22059. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-26328-2

  • 154

    Wang J Peng Y Jing S Han L Li T Luo J . A deep-learning approach for segmentation of liver tumors in magnetic resonance imaging using UNet++. BMC Cancer. (2023) 23:1060. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11432-x

  • 155

    Zbinden L Catucci D Suter Y Hulbert L Berzigotti A Brönnimann M et al . Automated liver segmental volume ratio quantification on non-contrast T1–Vibe Dixon liver MRI using deep learning. Eur J Radiol. (2023) 167:111047. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111047

  • 156

    Oh N Kim JH Rhu J Jeong WK Choi GS Kim JM et al . 3D auto-segmentation of biliary structure of living liver donors using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for enhanced preoperative planning. Int J Surg. (2024) 110:1975–82. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001067

  • 157

    Fallahpoor M Nguyen D Montahaei E Hosseini A Nikbakhtian S Naseri M et al . Segmentation of liver and liver lesions using deep learning. Phys Eng Sci Med. (2024) 47:611–9. doi: 10.1007/s13246-024-01390-4

  • 158

    Hamm CA Wang CJ Savic LJ Ferrante M Schobert I Schlachter T et al . Deep learning for liver tumor diagnosis part i: development of a convolutional neural network classifier for multi-phasic MRI. Eur Radiol. (2019) 29:3338–47. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06205-9

  • 159

    Wang CJ Hamm CA Letzen BS Duncan JS . A probabilistic approach for interpretable deep learning in liver cancer diagnosis. Proc SPIE 10950 Med Imaging 2019: Computer-Aided Diagnosis 109500U. (2019). doi: 10.1117/12.2512473

  • 160

    Trivizakis E Manikis GG Nikiforaki K Drevelegas K Constantinides M Drevelegas A et al . Extending 2-D convolutional neural networks to 3-D for advancing deep learning cancer classification with application to MRI liver tumor differentiation. IEEE J BioMed Health Inf. (2019) 23:923–30. doi: 10.1109/JBHI.6221020

  • 161

    Zhen SH Cheng M Tao YB Wang YF Juengpanich S Jiang ZY et al . Deep learning for accurate diagnosis of liver tumor based on magnetic resonance imaging and clinical data. Front Oncol. (2020) 10:680. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00680

  • 162

    Kim J Min JH Kim SK Shin SY Lee MW . Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using deep learning classifier: a multi-center retrospective Study. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:9458. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65875-4

  • 163

    Wan Y Zheng Z Liu R Zhu Z Zhou H Zhang X et al . A multi-scale and multi-level fusion approach for deep learning-based liver lesion diagnosis in magnetic resonance images with visual explanation. Life. (2021) 11:582. doi: 10.3390/life11060582

  • 164

    Oestmann PM Wang CJ Savic LJ Hamm CA Stark S Schobert I et al . Deep learning-assisted differentiation of pathologically proven atypical and typical hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) versus non-HCC on contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver. Eur Radiol. (2021) 31:4981–90. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07559-1

  • 165

    Jansen MJA Kuijf HJ Veldhuis WB Wessels FJ Viergever MA Pluim JPW . Automatic classification of focal liver lesions based on MRI and risk factors. PloS One. (2019) 14:e0217053. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217053

  • 166

    Hamm CA Beetz NL Savic LJ Penzkofer T . [Artificial intelligence and radiomics in MRI-based prostate diagnostics. Radiologe. (2020) 60:4855. doi: 10.1007/s00117-019-00613-0

  • 167

    Lin Y-S Huang P-H Chen Y-Y . Deep learning-based hepatocellular carcinoma histopathology image classification: accuracy versus training dataset size. IEEE Access. (2021) 9:33144–57. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3060765

  • 168

    Gao F Qiao K Yan B Wu M Wang L Jian Chen J et al . Hybrid network with difference degree and attention mechanism combined with radiomics (H-DARnet) for MVI prediction in HCC. Magn Reson Imaging. (2021) 83:2740. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2021.06.018

  • 169

    Chen M Kong C Qiao E Chen Y Chen W Jiang X et al . Multi-algorithms analysis for pretreatment prediction of response to transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma on multiphase MRI. Insights Imaging. (2023) 14:38. doi: 10.1186/s13244-023-01380-2

  • 170

    He T Fong JN Moore LW Ezeana CF Victor D Divatia M et al . An imageomics and multi-network based deep learning model for risk assessment of liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer. Comput Med Imaging Graph. (2021) 89:101894. doi: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2021.101894

  • 171

    Tian Y Komolafe TE Zheng J Zhou G Chen T Zhou B et al . Assessing PD-L1 expression level via preoperative MRI in HCC based on integrating deep learning and radiomics features. Diagnost (Basel). (2021) 11:1875. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11101875

  • 172

    Wang T Li Z Yu H Duan C Feng W Chang L et al . Prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma based on preoperative Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI: Comparison of predictive performance among 2D, 2D-expansion and 3D deep learning models. Front Oncol. (2023) 13:987781. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.987781

  • 173

    Hille G Agrawal S Tummala P Wybranski C Pech M Surov A et al . Joint liver and hepatic lesion segmentation in MRI using a hybrid CNN with transformer layers. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. (2023) 240:107647. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107647

  • 174

    Yang J Dvornek NC Zhang F Zhuang J Chapiro J Lin M et al . Domain-agnostic learning with anatomy-consistent embedding for cross-modality liver segmentation. IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis Workshops. (2019) 2019:10. doi: 10.1109/iccvw.2019.00043

  • 175

    Hong J Yu SC-H Chen W . Unsupervised domain adaptation for cross-modality liver segmentation via joint adversarial learning and self-learning. Appl Soft Computing. (2022) 121:108729. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.108729

  • 176

    Menegotto AB Lopes Becker CD Cazella SC . Computer-aided hepatocarcinoma diagnosis using multimodal deep learning. In: NovaisPLloretJChamosoPCarneiroDNavarroEOmatuS, editors. Ambient Intelligence – Software and Applications–10th International Symposium on Ambient Intelligence. ISAmI 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer, Cham (2020). p. Vol. 1006.

  • 177

    Menegotto AB Becker CDL Cazella SC . Computer-aided diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma fusing imaging and structured health data. Health Inf Sci Syst. (2021) 9:20. doi: 10.1007/s13755-021-00151-x

  • 178

    Gao R Zhao S Aishanjiang K Cai H Wei T Zhang Y et al . Deep learning for differential diagnosis of Malignant hepatic tumors based on multi-phase contrast-enhanced CT and clinical data. J Hematol Oncol. (2021) 14:154. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01167-2

  • 179

    Li W Lv XZ Zheng X Ruan SM Hu HT Chen LD et al . Machine learning-based ultrasomics improves the diagnostic performance in differentiating focal nodular hyperplasia and atypical hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Oncol. (2021) 11:544979. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.544979

  • 180

    Liu L Tang C Li L Chen P Tan Y Hu X et al . Deep learning radiomics for focal liver lesions diagnosis on long-range contrast-enhanced ultrasound and clinical factors. Quant Imaging Med Surg. (2022) 12:3213–26. doi: 10.21037/qims-21-1004

  • 181

    Khan RA Fu M Burbridge B Luo Y Wu F-X . A multi-modal deep neural network for multi-class liver cancer diagnosis. Neural Networks. (2023) 165:553–61. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2023.06.013

  • 182

    Liu QP Xu X Zhu FP Zhang YD Liu XS . Prediction of prognostic risk factors in hepatocellular carcinoma with transarterial chemoembolization using multi-modal multi-task deep learning. EClinicalMedicine. (2020) 23:100379. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100379

  • 183

    Sun Z Shi Z Xin Y Zhao S Jiang H Wang D et al . Artificial intelligent multi-modal point-of-care system for predicting response of transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. (2021) 9:761548. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.761548

  • 184

    Song D Wang Y Wang W Wang Y Cai J Zhu K et al . Using deep learning to predict microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma based on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI combined with clinical parameters. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2021) 147:3757–67. doi: 10.1007/s00432-021-03617-3

  • 185

    Jia X Sun Z Mi Q Yang Z Yang D . A multimodality-contribution-aware TripNet for histologic grading of hepatocellular carcinoma. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. (2022) 19:2003–16. doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2021.3079216

  • 186

    Hu X Zhou J Li Y Wang Y Guo J Sack I et al . Added value of viscoelasticity for MRI-based prediction of Ki-67 expression of hepatocellular carcinoma using a deep learning combined radiomics (DLCR) model. Cancer. (2022) 14:2575. doi: 10.3390/cancers14112575

  • 187

    Wei H Zheng T Zhang X Zheng C Jiang D Wu Y et al . Deep learning-based 3D quantitative total tumor burden predicts early recurrence of BCLC A and B HCC after resection. Eur Radiol. (2024). doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10941-y

  • 188

    Li Z Ma B Shui S Tu Z Peng W Chen Y et al . An integrated platform for decoding hydrophilic peptide fingerprints of hepatocellular carcinoma using artificial intelligence and two-dimensional nanosheets. J Mater Chem B. (2024) 12:7532–42. doi: 10.1039/d4tb00700j

  • 189

    Wu Y Zhuo C Lu Y Luo Z Lu L Wang J et al . A machine learning clinic scoring system for hepatocellular carcinoma based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. J Gastrointest Oncol. (2024) 15:1082–100. doi: 10.21037/jgo-24-230

  • 190

    Park IG Yoon SJ Won SM Oh KK Hyun JY Suk KT et al . Gut microbiota-based machine-learning signature for the diagnosis of alcohol-associated and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease. Sci Rep. (2024) 14:16122. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60768-2

  • 191

    Geng Z Wang S Ma L Zhang C Guan Z Zhang Y et al . Prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with MRI radiomics based on susceptibility weighted imaging and T2-weighted imaging. Radiol Med. (2024) 129:1130–42. doi: 10.1007/s11547-024-01845-4

  • 192

    Liu X Hou Y Wang X Yu L Wang X Jiang L et al . Machine learning-based development and validation of a scoring system for progression-free survival in liver cancer. Hepatol Int. (2020) 14:567–76. doi: 10.1007/s12072-020-10046-w

  • 193

    Phan AC Ngoan Trieu T Cang Phan T . Hounsfield unit variations-based liver lesions detection and classification using deep learning. Curr Med Imaging. (2023) 20:e280423216354. doi: 10.2174/1573405620666230428121748

  • 194

    Ou J Jiang L Bai T Zhan P Liu R Xiao H . ResTransUnet: An effective network combined with Transformer and U-Net for liver segmentation in CT scans. Comput Biol Med. (2024) 177:108625. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108625

  • 195

    Nakao Y Nishihara T Sasaki R Fukushima M Miuma S Miyaaki H et al . Investigation of deep learning model for predicting immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment efficacy on contrast-enhanced computed tomography images of hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci Rep. (2024) 14:6576. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-57078-y

  • 196

    Li S Jiang H Pang W . Joint multiple fully connected convolutional neural network with extreme learning machine for hepatocellular carcinoma nuclei grading. Comput Biol Med. (2017) 84:156–67. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2017.03.017

  • 197

    Park J Bae JS Kim JM Witanto JN Park SJ Lee JM . Development of a deep-learning model for classification of LI-RADS major features by using subtraction images of MRI: a preliminary study. Abdom Radiol (NY). (2023) 48:2547–56. doi: 10.1007/s00261-023-03962-6

  • 198

    Qu WF Tian MX Lu HW Zhou YF Liu WR Tang Z et al . Development of a deep pathomics score for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation. Hepatol Int. (2023) 17:927–41. doi: 10.1007/s12072-023-10511-2

  • 199

    Liu Y Zhang Z Zhang H Wang X Wang K Yang R et al . Clinical prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma using an MRI-based graph convolutional network model integrated with nomogram. Br J Radiol. (2024) 97:938–46. doi: 10.1093/bjr/tqae056

  • 200

    Han Y Akhtar J Liu G Li C Wang G . Early warning and diagnosis of liver cancer based on dynamic network biomarker and deep learning. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. (2023) 21:3478–89. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2023.07.002

  • 201

    Zhao J Li D Kassam Z Howey J Chong J Chen B et al . Tripartite-GAN: Synthesizing liver contrast-enhanced MRI to improve tumor detection. Med Image Anal. (2020) 63:101667. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2020.101667

  • 202

    Yan M Zhang X Zhang B Geng Z Xie C Yang W et al . Deep learning nomogram based on Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI for predicting early recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. Eur Radiol. (2023) 33:4949–61. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-09419-0

  • 203

    Liu Y Lu M Zhong JP . Magan: mask attention generative adversarial network for liver tumor CT image synthesis. J Healthc Eng. (2021) 2021:6675259. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-41685/v1

  • 204

    Hanna RF Miloushev VZ Tang A Finklestone LA Brejt SZ Sandhu RS et al . Comparative 13-year meta-analysis of the sensitivity and positive predictive value of ultrasound, CT, and MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY). (2016) 41:7190. doi: 10.1007/s00261-015-0592-8

  • 205

    Lakshmipriya B Pottakkat B Ramkumar G . Deep learning techniques in liver tumour diagnosis using CT and MR imaging-A systematic review. Artif Intell Med. (2023) 29:102557. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102557

  • 206

    Wei Q Tan N Xiong S Luo W Xia H Luo B . Deep learning methods in medical image-based hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers. (2023) 15:5701. doi: 10.3390/cancers15235701

  • 207

    Velichko YS Gennaro N Karri M Antalek M Bagci U . A comprehensive review of deep learning approaches for magnetic resonance imaging liver tumor analysis. Adv Clin Radiol. (2023) 5:15. doi: 10.1016/j.yacr.2023.06.001

  • 208

    Survarachakan S Prasad PJ Naseem R de Frutos JP Kumar RP Langø T et al . Deep learning for image-based liver analysis—A comprehensive review focusing on Malignant lesions. Artif Intell Med. (2022) 130:102331. doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102331

Summary

Keywords

artificial intelligence, deep learning, machine learning, liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, medical imaging, diagnosis, prediction

Citation

Wang L, Fatemi M and Alizad A (2024) Artificial intelligence techniques in liver cancer. Front. Oncol. 14:1415859. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1415859

Received

11 April 2024

Accepted

15 August 2024

Published

03 September 2024

Volume

14 - 2024

Edited by

Moti Freiman, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

Reviewed by

Jitendra Kuldeep, Cancer Research Center of Marseille, France

Bella Specktor-Fadida, University of Haifa, Israel

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Lulu Wang, ;

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics