ArticleScientific reports2021
Radiologists can visually predict mortality risk based on the gestalt of chest radiographs comparable to a deep learning network.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Deep Learning With Radiomics for Disease Diagnosis and Treatment: Challenges and Potential.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep learning convolutional neural network (CNN) can predict mortality from chest radiographs, yet, it is unknown whether radiologists can perform the same task. Here, we investigate whether radiologists can visually assess image gestalt (defined as deviation from an unremarkable chest radiograph associated with the likelihood of 6-year mortality) of a chest radiograph to predict 6-year mortality. The assessment was validated in an independent testing dataset and compared to the performance of a CNN developed for mortality prediction. Results are reported for the testing dataset only (n = 100; age 62.5 ± 5.2; male 55%, event rate 50%). The probability of 6-year mortality based on image gestalt had high accuracy (AUC: 0.68 (95% CI 0.58-0.78), similar to that of the CNN (AUC: 0.67 (95% CI 0.57-0.77); p = 0.90). Patients with high/very high image gestalt ratings were significantly more likely to die when compared to those rated as very low (p ≤ 0.04). Assignment to risk categories was not explained by patient characteristics or traditional risk factors and imaging findings (p ≥ 0.2). In conclusion, assessing image gestalt on chest radiographs by radiologists renders high prognostic accuracy for the probability of mortality, similar to that of a specifically trained CNN. Further studies are warranted to confirm this concept and to determine potential clinical benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.