Objective: Although most gallbladder polyps are benign, some neoplastic polyps may be malignant or may serve as precursors to malignancy. Distinguishing neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps using imaging examinations remains a major challenge.This meta-analysis aimed to identify the ultrasound (US) features that are significantly associated with neoplastic polyps. Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and KoreaMed databases were searched for articles published up to August 31, 2025. Bivariate random-effects models were used to calculate the meta-analytic pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), sensitivities, and specificities, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each US imaging feature in the diagnosis of neoplastic polyps. Results: Thirty studies evaluating 8,953 patients, including 1,216 (13.6%) patients with neoplastic polyps, were included.Among the nine evaluated US imaging features, namely, size ≥10 mm, sessile morphology, single polyp, coexisting gallstones, hypoechogenicity, heterogeneous echogenicity, gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT), absence of hyperechoic spot, and vascularity, eight were significantly associated with neoplastic polyps: size ≥10 mm (DOR: 6.23 [95% CI: 1.86– 20.90]), sessile morphology (DOR: 3.54 [1.93–5.97]), single polyp (DOR: 2.21 [1.76–2.74]), coexisting gallstones (DOR:1.86 [1.29–2.60]), hypoechogenicity (DOR: 3.55 [1.47–7.30]), GBWT (DOR: 9.38 [1.47–32.20]), absence of hyperechoic spots (DOR: 4.23 [2.46–6.83]), and vascularity (DOR: 9.72 [5.81–15.30]). Of these, size ≥10 mm demonstrated the highest pooled sensitivity (0.79 [95% CI: 0.68–0.87]), whereas hypoechogenicity showed the highest pooled specificity (0.93 [95% CI: 0.82–0.98]). Conclusion Eight US imaging features (size ≥10 mm, sessile morphology, single polyp, coexisting gallstones, hypoechogenicity, GBWT, absence of hyperechoic spots, and vascularity) were significantly associated with the presence of neoplastic polyps.These features may facilitate the management of gallbladder polyps.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma, a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements.Consequently, local ablation has become the first-line treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, preprocedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-Guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and post-treatment management of patients.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements. Consequently, local ablation has become the firstline treatment for early-stage HCC. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, pre-procedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and posttreatment management of patients.

Local ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a non-surgical option that directly targets and destroys tumor cells, has advanced significantly since the 1990s. Therapies with different energy sources, such as radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, and cryoablation, employ different mechanisms to induce tumor necrosis. The precision, safety, and effectiveness of these therapies have increased with advances in guiding technologies and device improvements. Consequently, local ablation has become the first-line treatment for early-stage HCC. The lack of organized evidence and expert opinions regarding patient selection, pre-procedure preparation, procedural methods, swift post-treatment evaluation, and follow-up has resulted in clinicians following varied practices. Therefore, an expert consensus-based practical recommendation for local ablation was developed by a group of experts in radiology and hepatology from the Research Committee of the Korean Liver Cancer Association in collaboration with the Korean Society of Image-guided Tumor Ablation to provide useful information and guidance for performing local ablation and for the pre- and post-treatment management of patients.

Kidney organoids derived from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) contain multilineage nephrogenic progenitor cells and can recapitulate the development of the kidney. Kidney organoids derived from hPSCs have the potential to be applied in regenerative medicine as well as renal disease modeling, drug screening, and nephrotoxicity testing. Despite biotechnological advances, individual differences in morphological and growth characteristics among kidney organoids need to be addressed before clinical and commercial application. In this study, we hypothesized that an automated noninvasive method based on deep learning of bright-field images of kidney organoids can predict their differentiation status. Methods: Bright-field images of kidney organoids were collected on day 18 after differentiation. To train convolutional neural networks (CNNs), we utilized a transfer learning approach. CNNs were trained to predict the differentiation of kidney organoids on bright-field images based on the messenger RNA expression of renal tubular epithelial cells as well as podocytes. Results: The best prediction model was DenseNet121 with a total Pearson correlation coefficient score of 0.783 on a test dataset. W classified the kidney organoids into two categories: organoids with above-average gene expression (Positive) and those with below-average gene expression (Negative). Comparing the best-performing CNN with human-based classifiers, the CNN algorithm had a receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve (AUC) score of 0.85, while the experts had an AUC score of 0.48. Conclusion: These results confirmed our original hypothesis and demonstrated that our artificial intelligence algorithm can successfully recognize the differentiation status of kidney organoids.