ArticleJournal of digital imaging2014
Automatic medical X-ray image classification using annotation.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2014. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare Professional in the Loop (HPIL): Classification of Standard and Oral Cancer-Causing Anomalous Regions of Oral Cavity Using Textural Analysis Technique in Autofluorescence Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Generate Structured Radiology Report from CT Images Using Image Annotation Techniques: Preliminary Results with Liver CT.Journal of digital imaging · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The demand for automatically classification of medical X-ray images is rising faster than ever. In this paper, an approach is presented to gain high accuracy rate for those classes of medical database with high ratio of intraclass variability and interclass similarities. The classification framework was constructed via annotation using the following three techniques: annotation by binary classification, annotation by probabilistic latent semantic analysis, and annotation using top similar images. Next, final annotation was constructed by applying ranking similarity on annotated keywords made by each technique. The final annotation keywords were then divided into three levels according to the body region, specific bone structure in body region as well as imaging direction. Different weights were given to each level of the keywords; they are then used to calculate the weightage for each category of medical images based on their ground truth annotation. The weightage computed from the generated annotation of query image was compared with the weightage of each category of medical images, and then the query image would be assigned to the category with closest weightage to the query image. The average accuracy rate reported is 87.5 %.
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.