Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35941406›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2023

Improving the Automatic Classification of Brain MRI Acquisition Contrast with Machine Learning.

Julia Cluceru, Janine M Lupo, Yannet Interian, Riley Bove, Jason C Crane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Julia CluceruCenter for Intelligent Imaging, Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Janine M LupoCenter for Intelligent Imaging, Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Yannet InterianMS in Analytics Program, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Riley BoveDepartment of Neurology, MS and Neuroinflammation Clinic, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jason C CraneCenter for Intelligent Imaging, Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. jason.crane@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1145-5639

Funding

Project 4: Multi-modality Metabolic Imaging for Monitoring Molecular Sub-types of GliomaP01CA118816 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Pavithra Viswanath · 2007 to 2026
$44.7M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA118816
6 · The paper itself

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

GliomaMagnetic Resonance ImagingBrainHumansMachine LearningNeuroimagingDeep learningImage classificationImage processingImage retrievalMachine learningMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID35941406
PMCPMC9984597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.