ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering
Efficient Quality Control with Mixed CT and CTA Datasets.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Deep learning promises the extraction of valuable information from traumatic brain injury (TBI) datasets and depends on efficient navigation when using large-scale mixed computed tomography (CT) datasets from clinical systems. To ensure a cleaner signal while training deep learning models, removal of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and scans with streaking artifacts is sensible. On massive datasets of heterogeneously sized scans, time-consuming manual quality assurance (QA) by visual inspection is still often necessary, despite the expectation of CTA annotation (artifact annotation is not expected). We propose an automatic QA approach for retrieving CT scans without artifacts by representing 3D scans as 2D axial slice montages and using a multi-headed convolutional neural network to detect CT vs CTA and artifact vs no artifact. We sampled 848 scans from a mixed CT dataset of TBI patients and performed 4-fold stratified cross-validation on 698 montages followed by an ablation experiment-150 stratified montages were withheld for external validation evaluation. Aggregate AUC for our main model was 0.978 for CT detection, 0.675 for artifact detection during cross-validation and 0.965 for CT detection, 0.698 for artifact detection on the external validation set, while the ablated model showed 0.946 for CT detection, 0.735 for artifact detection during cross-validation and 0.937 for CT detection, 0.708 for artifact detection on the external validation set. While our approach is successful for CT detection, artifact detection performance is potentially depressed due to the heterogeneity of present streaking artifacts and a suboptimal number of artifact scans in our training data.
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.