ReviewDer Radiologe2020
[Machine learning in radiology : Terminology from individual timepoint to trajectory].
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
31915840What 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.