Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36042118›Full record

ReviewJournal of digital imaging2022

Automated Protocoling for MRI Exams-Challenges and Solutions.

Jonas Denck, Oliver Haas, Jens Guehring, Andreas Maier, Eva Rothgang

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of digital imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Machine Learning System to Automate Body Computed Tomography Protocoling.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jonas DenckPattern Recognition Lab, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. jonas.denck@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1980-1073
Oliver HaasPattern Recognition Lab, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Jens GuehringSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Andreas MaierPattern Recognition Lab, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Eva RothgangDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Health, Technical University of Applied Sciences Amberg-Weiden, Weiden, Germany.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEOstbayerische Technische Hochschule Amberg-Weiden · DESiemens Healthineers (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated protocoling for MRI examinations is an amendable target for workflow automation with artificial intelligence. However, there are still challenges to overcome for a successful and robust approach. These challenges are outlined and analyzed in this work. Through a literature review, we analyzed limitations of currently published approaches for automated protocoling. Then, we assessed these limitations quantitatively based on data from a private radiology practice. For this, we assessed the information content provided by the clinical indication by computing the overlap coefficients for the sets of ICD-10-coded admitting diagnoses of different MRI protocols. Additionally, we assessed the heterogeneity of protocol trees from three different MRI scanners based on the overlap coefficient, on MRI protocol and sequence level. Additionally, we applied sequence name standardization to demonstrate its effect on the heterogeneity assessment, i.e., the overlap coefficient, of different protocol trees. The overlap coefficient for the set of ICD-10-coded admitting diagnoses for different protocols ranges from 0.14 to 0.56 for brain/head MRI exams and 0.04 to 0.57 for spine exams. The overlap coefficient across the set of sequences used at two different scanners increases when applying sequence name standardization (from 0.81/0.86 to 0.93). Automated protocoling for MRI examinations has the potential to reduce the workload for radiologists. However, an automated protocoling approach cannot be solely based on admitting diagnosis as it does not provide sufficient information. Moreover, sequence name standardization increases the overlap coefficient across the set of sequences used at different scanners and therefore facilitates transfer learning.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMagnetic Resonance ImagingAutomationBrainHumansWorkflowAutomated order entryAutomated protocolingMachine learningMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID36042118
PMCPMC9582071
OpenAlexW4293697180

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.