Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34286375›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Deep learning to automate the labelling of head MRI datasets for computer vision applications.

David A Wood, Sina Kafiabadi, Aisha Al Busaidi, Emily L Guilhem, Jeremy Lynch, Matthew K Townend, Antanas Montvila, Martin Kiik, Juveria Siddiqui, Naveen Gadapa and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Relevance of advanced imaging analysis units in radiology departments: a narrative review.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. AI and Neurology.Neurological research and practice · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Uncertainty-aware automatic TNM staging classification for [BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

16 authors.

David A WoodSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, Kings College London, Rayne Institute, 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Sina KafiabadiDepartment of Neuroradiology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Aisha Al BusaidiDepartment of Neuroradiology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Emily L GuilhemDepartment of Neuroradiology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Jeremy LynchDepartment of Neuroradiology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Matthew K TownendWrightington, Wigan & Leigh NHSFT, Wigan, WN1 2NN, UK.
Antanas MontvilaDepartment of Neuroradiology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Martin KiikSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, Kings College London, Rayne Institute, 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Juveria SiddiquiDepartment of Neuroradiology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Naveen GadapaDepartment of Neurology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Matthew D BengerDepartment of Neuroradiology, Ruskin Wing, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Asif MazumderGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Gareth BarkerInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Sebastian OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, Kings College London, Rayne Institute, 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
James H ColeInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Thomas C BoothSchool of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, Kings College London, Rayne Institute, 4th Floor, Lambeth Wing, London, SE1 7EH, UK. thomas.booth@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (GB) WT 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to build a deep learning model to derive labels from neuroradiology reports and assign these to the corresponding examinations, overcoming a bottleneck to computer vision model development.

methodsReference-standard labels were generated by a team of neuroradiologists for model training and evaluation. Three thousand examinations were labelled for the presence or absence of any abnormality by manually scrutinising the corresponding radiology reports ('reference-standard report labels'); a subset of these examinations (n = 250) were assigned 'reference-standard image labels' by interrogating the actual images. Separately, 2000 reports were labelled for the presence or absence of 7 specialised categories of abnormality (acute stroke, mass, atrophy, vascular abnormality, small vessel disease, white matter inflammation, encephalomalacia), with a subset of these examinations (n = 700) also assigned reference-standard image labels. A deep learning model was trained using labelled reports and validated in two ways: comparing predicted labels to (i) reference-standard report labels and (ii) reference-standard image labels. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) was used to quantify model performance. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score were also calculated.

resultsAccurate classification (AUC-ROC > 0.95) was achieved for all categories when tested against reference-standard report labels. A drop in performance (ΔAUC-ROC > 0.02) was seen for three categories (atrophy, encephalomalacia, vascular) when tested against reference-standard image labels, highlighting discrepancies in the original reports. Once trained, the model assigned labels to 121,556 examinations in under 30 min.

conclusionsOur model accurately classifies head MRI examinations, enabling automated dataset labelling for downstream computer vision applications. KEY POINTS: • Deep learning is poised to revolutionise image recognition tasks in radiology; however, a barrier to clinical adoption is the difficulty of obtaining large labelled datasets for model training. • We demonstrate a deep learning model which can derive labels from neuroradiology reports and assign these to the corresponding examinations at scale, facilitating the development of downstream computer vision models. • We rigorously tested our model by comparing labels predicted on the basis of neuroradiology reports with two sets of reference-standard labels: (1) labels derived by manually scrutinising each radiology report and (2) labels derived by interrogating the actual images.

Indexed as

Deep LearningArea Under CurveHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographyRadiologistsData curationDeep learningMagnetic resonance imagingNatural language processingRadiology

Identifiers

PMID34286375
PMCPMC8660736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.