ArticleBlockchain in healthcare today2021
Article in Blockchain in healthcare today, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survey-based insights on overcoming barriers in healthcare innovation ecosystems.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on ChatGPT and its utilization in medical and dental research.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Evaluating GPT as an Adjunct for Radiologic Decision Making: GPT-4 Versus GPT-3.5 in a Breast Imaging Pilot.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2023Article
- Assessing the Utility of ChatGPT Throughout the Entire Clinical Workflow: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Prediction of oxygen requirement in patients with COVID-19 using a pre-trained chest radiograph xAI model: efficient development of auditable risk prediction models via a fine-tuning approach.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Accurate auto-labeling of chest X-ray images based on quantitative similarity to an explainable AI model.Nature communications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current research on medical image processing relies heavily on the amount and quality of input data. Specifically, supervised machine learning methods require well-annotated datasets. A lack of annotation tools limits the potential to achieve high-volume processing and scaled systems with a proper reward mechanism. We developed MarkIt, a web-based tool, for collaborative annotation of medical imaging data with artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies. Our platform handles both Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) and non-DICOM images, and allows users to annotate them for classification and object detection tasks in an efficient manner. MarkIt can accelerate the annotation process and keep track of user activities to calculate a fair reward. A proof-of-concept experiment was conducted with three fellowship-trained radiologists, each of whom annotated 1,000 chest X-ray studies for multi-label classification. We calculated the inter-rater agreement and estimated the value of the dataset to distribute the reward for annotators using a crypto currency. We hypothesize that MarkIt allows the typically arduous annotation task to become more efficient. In addition, MarkIt can serve as a platform to evaluate the value of data and trade the annotation results in a more scalable manner in the future. The platform is publicly available for testing on
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.