BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Minireviews
©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Hepatol. Jan 27, 2026; 18(1): 111902
Published online Jan 27, 2026. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v18.i1.111902
Table 1 Comparison of key artificial intelligence approaches relevant to gastroenterology and hepatology
AI technique
Input data type
Interpretability
Computational cost
Common clinical applications
Limitations
Logistic regressionStructured tabular dataHighLowRisk scoring (e.g., cirrhosis, NAFLD), binary classificationAssumes linear relationships, limited complexity handling
Decision trees/random forestsStructured data, some semi-structuredModerate to highModeratePrognostic models (e.g., HCC recurrence), treatment stratificationCan overfit, less effective on unstructured data
SVMStructured data, imaging (preprocessed)Low to moderateModerateClassification tasks (e.g., benign vs malignant lesions)Less scalable, needs careful kernel tuning
CNNsImaging data (e.g., endoscopy, CT, MRI)LowHighPolyp detection, liver lesion classification, fibrosis stagingBlack-box nature, high data requirements
RNNs/LSTMsTime-series data, text sequencesLowHighMonitoring biomarkers over time, EHR text analysisDifficult to train, prone to vanishing gradients
Transformers/LLMsNatural language, multimodal inputsModerate to lowVery highSummarization of clinical notes, patient stratification via EHRExpensive to fine-tune, interpretability challenges
Autoencoders/unsupervised learningImaging, high-dimensional dataLowModerate to highAnomaly detection, feature extractionRequires careful architecture design, lacks direct supervision
Federated learningDecentralized structured/unstructured dataModerateHighMulti-center model training without data sharingComplex orchestration, risk of data heterogeneity bias


Write to the Help Desk