Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31073816›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019

Assessment of Critical Feeding Tube Malpositions on Radiographs Using Deep Learning.

Varun Singh, Varun Danda, Richard Gorniak, Adam Flanders, Paras Lakhani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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.

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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Deep Convolutional Backbone Comparison for Automated PET Image Quality Assessment.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Varun SinghDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. vxs039@jefferson.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2544-1473
Varun DandaDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Richard GorniakDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Adam FlandersDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Paras LakhaniDepartment of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assess the efficacy of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) in detection of critical enteric feeding tube malpositions on radiographs. 5475 de-identified HIPAA compliant frontal view chest and abdominal radiographs were obtained, consisting of 174 x-rays of bronchial insertions and 5301 non-critical radiographs, including normal course, normal chest, and normal abdominal x-rays. The ground-truth classification for enteric feeding tube placement was performed by two board-certified radiologists. Untrained and pretrained deep convolutional neural network models for Inception V3, ResNet50, and DenseNet 121 were each employed. The radiographs were fed into each deep convolutional neural network, which included untrained and pretrained models. The Tensorflow framework was used for Inception V3, ResNet50, and DenseNet. Images were split into training (4745), validation (630), and test (100). Both real-time and preprocessing image augmentation strategies were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) on the test data were used to assess the models. Statistical differences among the AUCs were obtained. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The pretrained Inception V3, which had an AUC of 0.87 (95 CI; 0.80-0.94), performed statistically significantly better (p < .001) than the untrained Inception V3, with an AUC of 0.60 (95 CI; 0.52-0.68). The pretrained Inception V3 also had the highest AUC overall, as compared with ResNet50 and DenseNet121, with AUC values ranging from 0.82 to 0.85. Each pretrained network outperformed its untrained counterpart. (p < 0.05). Deep learning demonstrates promise in differentiating critical vs. non-critical placement with an AUC of 0.87. Pretrained networks outperformed untrained ones in all cases. DCNNs may allow for more rapid identification and communication of critical feeding tube malpositions.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMedical ErrorsEnteral NutritionHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeural Networks, ComputerRadiographyRadiography, AbdominalRadiography, ThoracicArtificial ntelligenceChest radiographyDeep learningMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID31073816
PMCPMC6646608

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.