Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28689314›Full record

ReviewRadiological physics and technology2017

Overview of deep learning in medical imaging.

Kenji Suzuki

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Radiological physics and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 308 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
308citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

308 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Large language models for lumbar spondylolisthesis detection: a multi-center pilot comparative radiographic accuracy study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Hybrid fractal ConvXGBNet for brain tumor classification with log-cosh dice loss - cascaded V-Net based segmentation based on MRI images.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Redefining oropharyngeal cancer in the HPV era: integrating precision medicine and immunotherapeutic frontiers.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

248 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kenji SuzukiMedical Imaging Research Center and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, 3440 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL, 60616, USA. ksuzuki@iit.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-8309

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of machine learning (ML) has been increasing rapidly in the medical imaging field, including computer-aided diagnosis (CAD), radiomics, and medical image analysis. Recently, an ML area called deep learning emerged in the computer vision field and became very popular in many fields. It started from an event in late 2012, when a deep-learning approach based on a convolutional neural network (CNN) won an overwhelming victory in the best-known worldwide computer vision competition, ImageNet Classification. Since then, researchers in virtually all fields, including medical imaging, have started actively participating in the explosively growing field of deep learning. In this paper, the area of deep learning in medical imaging is overviewed, including (1) what was changed in machine learning before and after the introduction of deep learning, (2) what is the source of the power of deep learning, (3) two major deep-learning models: a massive-training artificial neural network (MTANN) and a convolutional neural network (CNN), (4) similarities and differences between the two models, and (5) their applications to medical imaging. This review shows that ML with feature input (or feature-based ML) was dominant before the introduction of deep learning, and that the major and essential difference between ML before and after deep learning is the learning of image data directly without object segmentation or feature extraction; thus, it is the source of the power of deep learning, although the depth of the model is an important attribute. The class of ML with image input (or image-based ML) including deep learning has a long history, but recently gained popularity due to the use of the new terminology, deep learning. There are two major models in this class of ML in medical imaging, MTANN and CNN, which have similarities as well as several differences. In our experience, MTANNs were substantially more efficient in their development, had a higher performance, and required a lesser number of training cases than did CNNs. "Deep learning", or ML with image input, in medical imaging is an explosively growing, promising field. It is expected that ML with image input will be the mainstream area in the field of medical imaging in the next few decades.

Indexed as

Machine LearningDiagnostic ImagingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedClassificationComputer-aided diagnosisConvolutional neural networkDeep learningMassive-training artificial neural networkMedical image analysis

Identifiers

PMID28689314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.