Trial reportJournal of digital imaging2012
Accurate determination of imaging modality using an ensemble of text- and image-based classifiers.
Trial report in Journal of digital imaging, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Automated Pediatric Bone Age Estimation Using Ensembles of Models from the 2017 RSNA Machine Learning Challenge.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2019Article
- Do physicians make their articles readable for their blind or low-vision patients? An analysis of current image processing practices in biomedical journals from the point of view of accessibility.Journal of digital imaging · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Imaging modality can aid retrieval of medical images for clinical practice, research, and education. We evaluated whether an ensemble classifier could outperform its constituent individual classifiers in determining the modality of figures from radiology journals. Seventeen automated classifiers analyzed 77,495 images from two radiology journals. Each classifier assigned one of eight imaging modalities--computed tomography, graphic, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine, positron emission tomography, photograph, ultrasound, or radiograph-to each image based on visual and/or textual information. Three physicians determined the modality of 5,000 randomly selected images as a reference standard. A "Simple Vote" ensemble classifier assigned each image to the modality that received the greatest number of individual classifiers' votes. A "Weighted Vote" classifier weighted each individual classifier's vote based on performance over a training set. For each image, this classifier's output was the imaging modality that received the greatest weighted vote score. We measured precision, recall, and F score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) for each classifier. Individual classifiers' F scores ranged from 0.184 to 0.892. The simple vote and weighted vote classifiers correctly assigned 4,565 images (F score, 0.913; 95% confidence interval, 0.905-0.921) and 4,672 images (F score, 0.934; 95% confidence interval, 0.927-0.941), respectively. The weighted vote classifier performed significantly better than all individual classifiers. An ensemble classifier correctly determined the imaging modality of 93% of figures in our sample. The imaging modality of figures published in radiology journals can be determined with high accuracy, which will improve systems for image retrieval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.