Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 27 references

a2z-1 for Multi-Disease Detection in Abdomen-Pelvis CT: External Validation and Performance Analysis Across 21 Conditions

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that a2z-1, a single AI model, maintains high diagnostic accuracy across 21 abdomen-pelvis CT conditions in external validation, and that its high-confidence predictions can uncover clinically significant findings…

desk verdict Useful external-validation data on 21 conditions, but the report-derived ground truth is not yet proven accurate enough to trust the headline AUC. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12629 v1 pith:WY7NF3YW submitted 2024-12-17 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Pranav Rajpurkar , Julian N. Acosta , Siddhant Dogra , Jaehwan Jeong , Deepanshu Jindal , Michael Moritz , Samir Rajpurkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords abdomen-pelvisCTmulti-diseasedetectionexternalvalidationartificialintelligenceradiologyAUCqualityassurancedeeplearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports that a2z-1, a deep-learning model for abdomen-pelvis CT, keeps its diagnostic accuracy when tested on data from two health systems that did not contribute to its training. The average area under the ROC curve across 21 time-sensitive findings is 0.923, with particularly high scores for small bowel obstruction and acute pancreatitis. The authors also show that accuracy is stable across patient age, sex, scanner manufacturer, contrast protocol, and slice thickness. Finally, a review of high-confidence model outputs found cases where the model flagged clinically significant findings that the original radiology report missed, which suggests a role as a quality-assurance second reader. If these results hold, a single broad AI system could support radiologists across different institutions without per-site retraining.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a2z-1 itself, a deep neural network that takes abdomen-pelvis CT volumes as input and outputs probabilities for 21 clinically actionable findings. The evaluation machinery is the external-validation protocol: internal validation on 9223 studies selected the model, and two held-out health systems provided 5444 studies for generalization testing. Ground truth was generated by automated extraction of labels from signed radiologist reports, a process the authors validated on a sample at 99.4% accuracy. The confidence-based three-tier categorization, with thresholds set on internal data to target 0.8 precision for 'likely' and 0.4 precision for 'possible,' is what allows the model to be positioned as a workflow triage and quality-assurance tool.

What would settle it

Have two board-certified radiologists independently re-read a stratified sample of the external validation studies covering all 21 conditions, resolve discrepancies by consensus, and recompute condition-specific AUCs against that reference standard; if the average AUC drops materially below 0.923, the automated labels used for ground truth were inflating performance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a2z-1 generalizes: on an external validation set of 5444 studies from 4907 patients at two independent health systems, it achieves an average AUC of 0.923 across 21 predefined actionable conditions. Per-condition AUCs range from 0.855 for colitis to 0.970 for unruptured aortic aneurysm, with small bowel obstruction at 0.958 and acute pancreatitis at 0.961. The paper further claims that the model's performance is consistent across demographic subgroups and imaging protocols, and that a confidence-based categorization into 'likely,' 'possible,' and 'unlikely' lets the model flag high-confidence findings for immediate attention. Manual review of discordant cases indicates that some apparent false positives were actually correct detections of findings missed or understated in the original radiologist reports, including subtle pancreatitis and cholecystitis. In the authors' telling, this makes a2z-1 the first AI model to demonstrate broad, externally validated performance across the abdomen-pelvis CT spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that the labels automatically extracted from radiology reports are accurate enough to serve as ground truth, a premise the paper supports with a 99.4% accuracy check that lacks a reported sample size or per-condition breakdown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single AI system could be deployed across hospitals and scanner manufacturers without retraining, based on the consistent external AUCs.
  • The model could serve as a second reader that resurfaces findings missed or hedged in the original report, based on the manual review cases.
  • The three-tier confidence system enables different workflow uses: immediate alerts for 'likely,' secondary review for 'possible,' and low attention for 'unlikely.'
  • Subgroup consistency implies the model would not systematically penalize particular age groups, sexes, or contrast protocols, supporting equitable deployment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step, not tested here, is a prospective study where radiologists see a2z-1 outputs at read time; the claim that it catches missed findings would only become actionable if it changes management or outcomes.
  • The model's tendency to flag conditions in the same pathological spectrum as the report diagnosis (for example, colitis where the report says diverticulitis) suggests that exact-match AUC understates its clinically useful performance; evaluation metrics that reward anatomically or pathophysiologically related predictions would better reflect its value.
  • Because the authors are also the model's developers and the label validation was self-performed, independent replication by a third party on independently curated datasets would substantially strengthen confidence in the reported 0.923 average.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an external validation of a2z-1, a deep-learning model for detecting 21 abdominal and pelvic findings on CT. The authors claim an average AUC of 0.923 across 21 conditions on 5,444 external studies from two health systems, with consistent performance across sites, patient demographics, and imaging protocols. They also report that high-confidence model predictions identified findings missed by original radiologist reports, suggesting a quality-assurance role. The study is retrospective and uses automated extraction of ground-truth labels from radiology reports, with a small manual validation subset reported as 99.4% accurate, F1 92.6%, precision 88.7%, recall 99.05%. The paper includes subgroup analyses by age, sex, scan area, contrast type, slice thickness, and scanner manufacturer, and describes a three-tiered confidence categorization ('likely', 'possible', 'unlikely') with thresholds tuned on internal validation data.

Significance. If the reported performance holds, this would be a substantial contribution: a single AI system demonstrating high and consistent discrimination across 21 time-sensitive abdominal conditions on truly external data would be of considerable clinical interest, and the proposed confidence-tier workflow is a practical idea. The paper's strengths are the large external cohort, the breadth of conditions, and the explicit attempt to analyze label noise and missed findings. However, the central claim rests on the accuracy of automatically extracted report labels, and the manuscript's own analyses in Sections 2.5 and 2.6 show that label errors are concentrated among high-confidence model predictions, meaning the label noise is not independent of model output. Without per-condition labeler validation or independent blinded adjudication, the reported AUCs are not yet tied to true diagnostic performance. The subgroup and missed-findings claims also lack statistical support. The study is therefore promising but currently under-supported; it could become a strong validation report after targeted revisions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Evaluation Details] The ground-truth labels for the external validation set are derived from automated extraction from radiology reports, and the only validation reported is the authors' own comparison of the labeler to report text on an unspecified sample, giving aggregate accuracy 99.4%, F1 92.6%, precision 88.7%, recall 99.05%. The sample size and per-condition breakdown are not reported, and the aggregate precision of 88.7% implies roughly one in nine positive labels is a false positive overall. More importantly, Section 2.5 documents cases where the model's high-confidence 'false positives' were actually findings present in the report but missed by the labeler, and Section 2.6 documents labels marked positive when the report did not mention the finding. This demonstrates that label noise is not independent of model output, so the direction and magnitude of bias in the per-condition AUCs is unknown. Without per-condition labeler error rates or an independent, blinded radiologist adjudication of a stratified sample, the reported average AUC of 0.923 cannot be distinguished from a report-to-label misclassification artifact. This is the load-bearing assumption for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Figure 5] All AUC values are reported as point estimates without confidence intervals, and per-condition sample sizes are not provided either in the text or in Figure 5. For low-prevalence conditions such as aortic dissection or retroperitoneal hemorrhage, the uncertainty in AUC can be substantial, and the claim of 'consistent performance across sites' (e.g., small bowel obstruction AUCs of 0.979, 0.981, 0.947) is not supported by any statistical comparison or interval estimate. The absence of confidence intervals also affects the comparison between internal and external validation and the statements about conditions with 'improved' or 'decreased' performance across sites. Reporting CIs (e.g., DeLong or bootstrap) and per-condition sample sizes is essential for a validation study.
  3. [Section 2.3, Table 1 and Figure 6] The subgroup analysis claims consistent performance across age groups, sex, scan areas, contrast types, slice thicknesses, and scanner manufacturers, but no confidence intervals or hypothesis tests are provided for any subgroup AUC. For example, the statement that 'multi-regional scans show a dip to around 0.87' compared with 0.92 for abdominal scans may reflect noise or confounding by disease mix, and without interval estimates or tests, the 'consistent performance' claim is not quantitatively supported. The paper should provide CIs for subgroup AUCs and, where appropriate, tests of interaction or equivalence, and should adjust for case-mix differences across subgroups.
  4. [Sections 2.5 and 2.6] The analysis of high-confidence model predictions (false positives and false negatives) is based on selected, unblinded manual review by the model developers themselves, with no systematic sampling protocol, no prespecified adjudication criteria, no independent radiologist readers, and no denominator describing how many cases were reviewed. The manuscript reports anecdotes such as a missed retroperitoneal hemorrhage and a subtle pancreatitis, and states that 'labeling errors were less than 1%' without defining the denominator. The abstract's claim that a2z-1 'identified overlooked findings' is therefore not quantitatively supported. To support the quality-assurance claim, the authors need a structured reader study or adjudication process with a defined sample, blinded independent readers, and prespecified definitions of 'missed finding.'
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract reports an average AUC of 0.931 for 'large-scale retrospective analysis' and 0.923 for external validation; the main text states 0.923 but does not clearly define what the 0.931 corresponds to (presumably internal validation). Please clarify the relationship between these numbers and define 'average AUC' (unweighted across conditions? weighted by sample size?).
  2. [Section 2.1 and figure captions] Figure references are inaccurate: Figure 1 and Figure 3 are case examples, not performance figures, yet the text cites 'acute pancreatitis (Figure 1)' and 'peritoneal free air (Figure 3)' when describing AUC results. Please renumber or re-reference the correct figures.
  3. [Section 1, Introduction] There is a typo: 'review an CTs' should be 'review a CT'. Figure 2's caption also contains 'abdominen-pelvis'.
  4. [Section 2.4] The confidence-category thresholds were tuned on internal validation data, but the manuscript does not report how the target precisions of 0.8 and 0.4 were verified or their stability on the external sites. Please provide the achieved precision and recall for each category on both internal and external data.
  5. [Section 2.5] The sentence 'the proportion of labeling errors were less than 1%' is ambiguous; state explicitly what the numerator and denominator are (e.g., proportion of all external studies, or proportion of high-confidence false positives), and report the proportion separately for each condition.
  6. [General] The manuscript provides no technical description of the a2z-1 model architecture, training data, or inference pipeline, and no statement of code or data availability. For a validation study, at least a summary of the model's development dataset and characteristics (e.g., scanner types, annotation process) is needed to assess generalizability.
  7. [General] The paper does not state whether institutional review board approval or a waiver was obtained for the retrospective use of the external datasets, nor does it mention patient consent or data de-identification. This information is required for publication in a medical imaging journal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the held-out external validation is a genuine benchmark; the labeler-validation and developer-led case review issues are validity risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the external-validation AUC of 0.923 across 21 conditions, computed on 5,444 studies from two health systems that were not used for training. This is a held-out benchmark, so the headline metric is not fitted to the test set by construction. The main weakness is the ground-truth construction: Section 2.1 states that 'the ground truth for these cases was established through automated label extraction from the corresponding clinical radiology reports,' with the labeler validated by the authors on an unspecified sample (aggregate accuracy 99.4%, precision 88.7%). This is a legitimate concern about label noise and benchmark fidelity, but it is not circular: the model outputs are not used to define the labels, and the labeler was not trained on the external reports as a function of model predictions. Section 2.4's confidence thresholds were 'set using internal validation data' and then applied to external data; that is standard threshold calibration followed by out-of-sample evaluation, not a fitted-input-called-prediction step. Section 2.5's manual review of high-confidence false positives, in which the authors sometimes reclassify label errors as model successes, is self-referential and unblinded, and should be treated as anecdotal evidence rather than a quantitative correction; however, the paper does not recompute the AUC from the reclassified labels, so the main metric does not reduce to that review. The self-citations in the paper (Rajpurkar and Lungren 2023; Rajpurkar et al. 2020) are general background and prior-work references, not load-bearing justifications for the model's performance. No equation or statistical step in the paper makes the predicted outcome equivalent to its input by construction, and no uniqueness claim or imported ansatz is used to force the result. Accordingly, the analysis finds no significant circularity, with minor self-referential aspects that lower confidence in the interpretive claims but do not invert the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper posits no new physical or mathematical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the quality of automated labels, the reliability of radiologist reports as ground truth, and the independence of external sites. Confidence thresholds are the only hand-set parameters, but they are not central to the AUC claims.

free parameters (1)
  • Confidence category thresholds = Precision targets of 0.8 for 'likely' and 0.4 for 'possible'
    Thresholds for the three-tier confidence system were set using internal validation data, as described in Section 2.4. They are used only for workflow categorization, not for the primary AUC claims.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Automated label extraction from radiology reports yields accurate ground truth (validated on a subset).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 'Evaluation Details' where labels are extracted automatically and only a sample is manually checked.
  • domain assumption Radiology reports signed by US-certified radiologists are a reliable reference standard.
    The paper treats report-derived labels as ground truth, assuming the reports themselves are correct and comprehensive.
  • domain assumption The external validation sites are independent of model development.
    The paper states external sites come from two different states and were not used during training, but provides no verification of independence beyond that assertion.
  • domain assumption The selected 21 conditions are clinically significant and representative of urgent abdominal findings.
    Conditions were chosen based on urgency, intervention potential, and prevalence, as described in Section 2.1. This selection shapes the reported performance but is not independently justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of a2z-1 for Multi-Disease Detection in Abdomen-Pelvis CT: External Validation and Performance Analysis Across 21 Conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WY7NF3YW

@misc{pith2026241212629,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: a2z-1 for Multi-Disease Detection in Abdomen-Pelvis CT: External Validation and Performance Analysis Across 21 Conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WY7NF3YW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12629}
}
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive evaluation of a2z-1, an artificial intelligence (AI) model designed to analyze abdomen-pelvis CT scans for 21 time-sensitive and actionable findings. Our study focuses on rigorous assessment of the model's performance and generalizability. Large-scale retrospective analysis demonstrates an average AUC of 0.931 across 21 conditions. External validation across two distinct health systems confirms consistent performance (AUC 0.923), establishing generalizability to different evaluation scenarios, with notable performance in critical findings such as small bowel obstruction (AUC 0.958) and acute pancreatitis (AUC 0.961). Subgroup analysis shows consistent accuracy across patient sex, age groups, and varied imaging protocols, including different slice thicknesses and contrast administration types. Comparison of high-confidence model outputs to radiologist reports reveals instances where a2z-1 identified overlooked findings, suggesting potential for quality assurance applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. H. Abujudeh, G. W. Boland, R. Kaewlai, P. Rabiner, E. F. Halpern, G. S. Gazelle, and J. H. Thrall. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (ct) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. European radiology, 20: 0 1952--1957, 2010

    work page 1952

  2. [2]

    Blankemeier, J

    L. Blankemeier, J. P. Cohen, A. Kumar, D. V. Veen, S. J. S. Gardezi, M. Paschali, Z. Chen, J.-B. Delbrouck, E. Reis, C. Truyts, C. Bluethgen, M. E. K. Jensen, S. Ostmeier, M. Varma, J. M. J. Valanarasu, Z. Fang, Z. Huo, Z. Nabulsi, D. Ardila, W.-H. Weng, E. A. Junior, N. Ahuja, J. Fries, N. H. Shah, A. Johnston, R. D. Boutin, A. Wentland, C. P. Langlotz, ...

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    A. P. Brady. Error and discrepancy in radiology: inevitable or avoidable? Insights into imaging, 8: 0 171--182, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    M. W. Brejnebøl, Y. W. Nielsen, O. Taubmann, E. Eibenberger, and F. C. Müller. Artificial Intelligence based detection of pneumoperitoneum on CT scans in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain: A clinical diagnostic test accuracy study. European Journal of Radiology, 150: 0 110216, May 2022. ISSN 1872-7727. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110216

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    J. E. Burns, J. Yao, H. Muñoz, and R. M. Summers. Automated Detection , Localization , and Classification of Traumatic Vertebral Body Fractures in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine at CT . Radiology, 278 0 (1): 0 64--73, Jan. 2016. ISSN 0033-8419. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142346. URL https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2015142346. Publisher: Radiologi...

    work page doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142346 2016

  6. [6]

    K. Cao, Y. Xia, J. Yao, X. Han, L. Lambert, T. Zhang, W. Tang, G. Jin, H. Jiang, X. Fang, I. Nogues, X. Li, W. Guo, Y. Wang, W. Fang, M. Qiu, Y. Hou, T. Kovarnik, M. Vocka, Y. Lu, Y. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Liu, J. Zhou, C. Xie, R. Zhang, H. Lu, G. D. Hager, A. L. Yuille, L. Lu, C. Shao, Y. Shi, Q. Zhang, T. Liang, L. Zhang, and J. Lu. Large-scale pancreatic ca...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41591-0 2023

  7. [7]

    P.-T. Chen, T. Wu, P. Wang, D. Chang, K.-L. Liu, M.-S. Wu, H. R. Roth, P.-C. Lee, W.-C. Liao, and W. Wang. Pancreatic Cancer Detection on CT Scans with Deep Learning : A Nationwide Population -based Study . Radiology, 306 0 (1): 0 172--182, Jan. 2023. ISSN 0033-8419. doi:10.1148/radiol.220152. URL https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.220152. Publ...

    work page doi:10.1148/radiol.220152 2023

  8. [8]

    A. Hata, M. Yanagawa, K. Yamagata, Y. Suzuki, S. Kido, A. Kawata, S. Doi, Y. Yoshida, T. Miyata, M. Tsubamoto, N. Kikuchi, and N. Tomiyama. Deep learning algorithm for detection of aortic dissection on non-contrast-enhanced CT . European Radiology, 31 0 (2): 0 1151--1159, Feb. 2021. ISSN 1432-1084. doi:10.1007/s00330-020-07213-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s00330-020-07213-w 2021

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    J. N. Itri, R. R. Tappouni, R. O. McEachern, A. J. Pesch, and S. H. Patel. Fundamentals of diagnostic error in imaging. Radiographics, 38 0 (6): 0 1845--1865, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    C. M. Jones, L. Danaher, M. R. Milne, C. Tang, J. Seah, L. Oakden-Rayner, A. Johnson, Q. D. Buchlak, and N. Esmaili. Assessment of the effect of a comprehensive chest radiograph deep learning model on radiologist reports and patient outcomes: a real-world observational study. ...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Y. W. Kim and L. T. Mansfield. Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. American journal of roentgenology, 202 0 (3): 0 465--470, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    C. P. Langlotz. The future of ai and informatics in radiology: 10 predictions, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    P. M. Lauritzen, J. G. Andersen, M. V. Stokke, A. L. Tennstrand, R. Aamodt, T. Heggelund, F. A. Dahl, G. Sandb k, P. Hurlen, and P. Gulbrandsen. Radiologist-initiated double reading of abdominal ct: retrospective analysis of the clinical importance of changes to radiology repo...

    2016

  6. [14]

    J. Liu, B. Varghese, F. Taravat, L. S. Eibschutz, and A. Gholamrezanezhad. An Extra Set of Intelligent Eyes : Application of Artificial Intelligence in Imaging of Abdominopelvic Pathologies in Emergency Radiology . Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 12 0 (6): 0 1351, May 2022. ...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    B. M. Mervak, J. G. Fried, and A. P. Wasnik. A Review of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Abdominal Imaging . Diagnostics, 13 0 (18): 0 2889, Jan. 2023. ISSN 2075-4418. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13182889. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/13/18/2889. Numbe...

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Peng, W.-J

    Y.-C. Peng, W.-J. Lee, Y.-C. Chang, W. P. Chan, and S.-J. Chen. Radiologist burnout: Trends in medical imaging utilization under the national health insurance system with the universal code bundling strategy in an academic tertiary medical centre. European Journal of Radiology...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Rajpurkar and M

    P. Rajpurkar and M. P. Lungren. The Current and Future State of AI Interpretation of Medical Images . New England Journal of Medicine, 388 0 (21): 0 1981--1990, May 2023. ISSN 0028-4793. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2301725. URL https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2301725. Publis...

    1981 doi

  10. [18]

    Rajpurkar, A

    P. Rajpurkar, A. Park, J. Irvin, C. Chute, M. Bereket, D. Mastrodicasa, C. P. Langlotz, M. P. Lungren, A. Y. Ng, and B. N. Patel. AppendiXNet : Deep Learning for Diagnosis of Appendicitis from A Small Dataset of CT Exams Using Video Pretraining . Scientific Reports, 10 0 (1): ...

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    A. B. Rosenkrantz and N. K. Bansal. Diagnostic errors in abdominopelvic ct interpretation: characterization based on report addenda. Abdominal Radiology, 41: 0 1793--1799, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Rueckel, J

    J. Rueckel, J. I. Sperl, S. Kaestle, B. F. Hoppe, N. Fink, J. Rudolph, V. Schwarze, T. Geyer, F. F. Strobl, J. Ricke, M. Ingrisch, and B. O. Sabel. Reduction of missed thoracic findings in emergency whole-body computed tomography using artificial intelligence assistance. Quant...

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    S. Schmidt. AI -based approaches in the daily practice of abdominal imaging. European Radiology, 34 0 (1): 0 495--497, Jan. 2024. ISSN 1432-1084. doi:10.1007/s00330-023-10116-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10116-1

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Smith-Bindman, M

    R. Smith-Bindman, M. L. Kwan, E. C. Marlow, M. K. Theis, W. Bolch, S. Y. Cheng, E. J. Bowles, J. R. Duncan, R. T. Greenlee, L. H. Kushi, et al. Trends in use of medical imaging in us health care systems and in ontario, canada, 2000-2016. Jama, 322 0 (9): 0 843--856, 2019

    2000

  15. [23]

    R. M. Summers, D. C. Elton, S. Lee, Y. Zhu, J. Liu, M. Bagheri, V. Sandfort, P. C. Grayson, N. N. Mehta, P. A. Pinto, W. M. Linehan, A. A. Perez, P. M. Graffy, S. D. O'Connor, and P. J. Pickhardt. Atherosclerotic Plaque Burden on Abdominal CT : Automated Assessment With Deep L...

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Vanderbecq, M

    Q. Vanderbecq, M. Gelard, J.-C. Pesquet, M. Wagner, L. Arrive, M. Zins, and E. Chouzenoux. Deep learning for automatic bowel-obstruction identification on abdominal CT . European Radiology, 34 0 (9): 0 5842--5853, Sept. 2024. ISSN 1432-1084. doi:10.1007/s00330-024-10657-z. URL...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    D. J. Winkel, T. Heye, T. J. Weikert, D. T. Boll, and B. Stieltjes. Evaluation of an AI - Based Detection Software for Acute Findings in Abdominal Computed Tomography Scans : Toward an Automated Work List Prioritization of Routine CT Examinations . Investigative Radiology, 54 ...

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Y. Yin, D. Yakar, J. J. G. Slangen, F. J. H. Hoogwater, T. C. Kwee, and R. J. de Haas. The Value of Deep Learning in Gallbladder Lesion Characterization . Diagnostics, 13 0 (4): 0 704, Feb. 2023. ISSN 2075-4418. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13040704. URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    J. Zhou, W. Wang, B. Lei, W. Ge, Y. Huang, L. Zhang, Y. Yan, D. Zhou, Y. Ding, J. Wu, and W. Wang. Automatic Detection and Classification of Focal Liver Lesions Based on Deep Convolutional Neural Networks : A Preliminary Study . Frontiers in Oncology, 10, Jan. 2021. ISSN 2234-...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.