Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515717›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology experimental2018

Big data, artificial intelligence, and structured reporting.

Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Bettina Baeßler

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology experimental, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07438197 (TENS Versus Foam Rolling for Recovery After Eccentric Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Elite Female Volleyball Players), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07438197 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

TENS Versus Foam Rolling for Recovery After Eccentric Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Elite Female Volleyball Players: A Comparative Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sistan and BaluchestanRan2020 to 2020Enrolled30ConditionsDelayed-Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS), Exercise-induced Muscle Damage, Muscle Recovery, Athletic InjuriesArmsTranscutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Foam Rolling (FR)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Structured Reporting in Sleep Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Daniel Pinto Dos SantosDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. daniel.pinto-dos-santos@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4785-6394
Bettina BaeßlerDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The past few years have seen a considerable rise in interest towards artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in radiology. However, in order for such systems to perform adequately, large amounts of training data are required. These data should ideally be standardised and of adequate quality to allow for further usage in training of artificial intelligence algorithms. Unfortunately, in many current clinical and radiological information technology ecosystems, access to relevant pieces of information is difficult. This is mostly because a significant portion of information is handled as a collection of narrative texts and interoperability is still lacking. This review aims at giving a brief overview on how structured reporting can help to facilitate research in artificial intelligence and the context of big data.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceInformation technologyMachine learningRadiology

Identifiers

PMID30515717
PMCPMC6279752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.