Deep learning analysis of MRI accurately detects early-stage perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Among those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is often diagnosed at a late stage and is a leading source of mortality. Detection of pCCA in PSC when curative action can be taken is challenging. Our aim was to create a deep learning model that analyzed MRI to detect early-stage pCCA and compare its diagnostic performance with expert radiologists. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study involving adults with large duct PSC who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI. Senior abdominal radiologists reviewed the images. All patients with pCCA had early-stage cancer and were registered for liver transplantation. We trained a 3D DenseNet-121 model, a form of deep learning, using MRI images and assessed its performance in a separate test cohort. The study included 398 patients (training cohort n=150; test cohort n=248). pCCA was present in 230 individuals (training cohort n=64; test cohort n=166). In the test cohort, the respective performances of the model compared to the radiologists were: sensitivity 87.9% versus 50.0%, p <0.001; specificity 84.1% versus 100.0%, p <0.001; area under receiving operating curve 86.0% versus 75.0%, p <0.001. Even when a mass was absent, the model had a higher sensitivity for pCCA than radiologists (91.6% vs. 50.6%, p <0.001) and maintained good specificity (84.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D DenseNet-121 MRI model effectively detects early-stage pCCA in PSC patients. Compared to expert radiologists, the model missed fewer cases of cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".