Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35359400›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022

Evaluation of Deep Learning-Based Automated Detection of Primary Spine Tumors on MRI Using the Turing Test.

Hanqiang Ouyang, Fanyu Meng, Jianfang Liu, Xinhang Song, Yuan Li, Yuan Yuan, Chunjie Wang, Ning Lang, Shuai Tian, Meiyi Yao and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Hanqiang OuyangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Fanyu MengInstitute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jianfang LiuDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xinhang SongInstitute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Yuan LiDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuan YuanDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chunjie WangDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ning LangDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shuai TianDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Meiyi YaoInstitute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xiaoguang LiuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Huishu YuanDepartment of Radiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shuqiang JiangInstitute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Liang JiangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNPeking University Third Hospital · CNInstitute of Computing Technology · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CNUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recently, the Turing test has been used to investigate whether machines have intelligence similar to humans. Our study aimed to assess the ability of an artificial intelligence (AI) system for spine tumor detection using the Turing test. Methods: Our retrospective study data included 12179 images from 321 patients for developing AI detection systems and 6635 images from 187 patients for the Turing test. We utilized a deep learning-based tumor detection system with Faster R-CNN architecture, which generates region proposals by Region Proposal Network in the first stage and corrects the position and the size of the bounding box of the lesion area in the second stage. Each choice question featured four bounding boxes enclosing an identical tumor. Three were detected by the proposed deep learning model, whereas the other was annotated by a doctor; the results were shown to six doctors as respondents. If the respondent did not correctly identify the image annotated by a human, his answer was considered a misclassification. If all misclassification rates were >30%, the respondents were considered unable to distinguish the AI-detected tumor from the human-annotated one, which indicated that the AI system passed the Turing test. Results: The average misclassification rates in the Turing test were 51.2% (95% CI: 45.7%-57.5%) in the axial view (maximum of 62%, minimum of 44%) and 44.5% (95% CI: 38.2%-51.8%) in the sagittal view (maximum of 59%, minimum of 36%). The misclassification rates of all six respondents were >30%; therefore, our AI system passed the Turing test. Conclusion: Our proposed intelligent spine tumor detection system has a similar detection ability to annotation doctors and may be an efficient tool to assist radiologists or orthopedists in primary spine tumor detection.

Indexed as

deep learningMRIprimary tumorspine tumorTuring test

Identifiers

PMID35359400
PMCPMC8962659
OpenAlexW4220966852

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.