Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31915840›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2020

[Machine learning in radiology : Terminology from individual timepoint to trajectory].

Georg Langs, Ulrike Attenberger, Roxane Licandro, Johannes Hofmanninger, Matthias Perkonigg, Mario Zusag, Sebastian Röhrich, Daniel Sobotka, Helmut Prosch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Georg LangsUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich. georg.langs@meduniwien.ac.at.
Ulrike AttenbergerUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland.
Roxane LicandroUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.
Johannes HofmanningerUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.
Matthias PerkoniggUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.
Mario ZusagUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.
Sebastian RöhrichUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.
Daniel SobotkaUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.
Helmut ProschUniversitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF I 2714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

methodical issueMachine learning (ML) algorithms have an increasingly relevant role in radiology tackling tasks such as the automatic detection and segmentation of diagnosis-relevant markers, the quantification of progression and response, and their prediction in individual patients. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL

methodsML algorithms are relevant for all image acquisition techniques from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to ultrasound. However, different modalities result in different challenges with respect to standardization and variability. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: ML algorithms are increasingly able to analyze longitudinal data for the training of prediction models. This is relevant since it enables the use of comprehensive information for predicting individual progression and response, and the associated support of treatment decisions by ML models. PERFORMANCE: The quality of detection and segmentation algorithms of lesions has reached an acceptable level in several areas. The accuracy of prediction models is still increasing, but is dependent on the availability of representative training data. ACHIEVEMENTS: The development of ML algorithms in radiology is progressing although many solutions are still at a validation stage. It is accompanied by a parallel and increasingly interlinked development of basic methods and techniques which will gradually be put into practice in radiology. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Two factors will impact the relevance of ML in radiological practice: the thorough validation of algorithms and solutions, and the creation of representative diverse data for the training and validation in a realistic context.

Indexed as

Machine LearningRadiologyAlgorithmsHumansTerminology as TopicAlgorithmsArtificial intelligenceDefinitionsImage analysisInformatics

Identifiers

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.