ArticleJournal of digital imaging2023
Improving the Automatic Classification of Brain MRI Acquisition Contrast with Machine Learning.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic sequence identification in multicentric prostate multiparametric MRI datasets for clinical machine-learning.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Sequence-Type Classification of Brain MRI for Acute Stroke Using a Self-Supervised Machine Learning Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Automated quantification of data acquired as part of an MRI exam requires identification of the specific acquisition of relevance to a particular analysis. This motivates the development of methods capable of reliably classifying MRI acquisitions according to their nominal contrast type, e.g., T1 weighted, T1 post-contrast, T2 weighted, T2-weighted FLAIR, proton-density weighted. Prior studies have investigated using imaging-based methods and DICOM metadata-based methods with success on cohorts of patients acquired as part of a clinical trial. This study compares the performance of these methods on heterogeneous clinical datasets acquired with many different scanners from many institutions. RF and CNN models were trained on metadata and pixel data, respectively. A combined RF model incorporated CNN logits from the pixel-based model together with metadata. Four cohorts were used for model development and evaluation: MS research (n = 11,106 series), MS clinical (n = 3244 series), glioma research (n = 612 series, test/validation only), and ADNI PTSD (n = 477 series, training only). Together, these cohorts represent a broad range of acquisition contexts (scanners, sequences, institutions) and subject pathologies. Pixel-based CNN and combined models achieved accuracies between 97 and 98% on the clinical MS cohort. Validation/test accuracies with the glioma cohort were 99.7% (metadata only) and 98.4 (CNN). Accurate and generalizable classification of MRI acquisition contrast types was demonstrated. Such methods are important for enabling automated data selection in high-throughput and big-data image analysis applications.
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.