ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Applying machine learning classifiers to automate quality assessment of paediatric dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC-) MRI data.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. 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.
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInvestigate the performance of qualitative review (QR) for assessing dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC-) MRI data quality in paediatric normal brain and develop an automated alternative to QR.
methods1027 signal-time courses were assessed by Reviewer 1 using QR. 243 were additionally assessed by Reviewer 2 and % disagreements and Cohen's κ (κ) were calculated. The signal drop-to-noise ratio (SDNR), root mean square error (RMSE), full width half maximum (FWHM) and percentage signal recovery (PSR) were calculated for the 1027 signal-time courses. Data quality thresholds for each measure were determined using QR results. The measures and QR results trained machine learning classifiers. Sensitivity, specificity, precision, classification error and area under the curve from a receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated for each threshold and classifier.
resultsComparing reviewers gave 7% disagreements and κ = 0.83. Data quality thresholds of: 7.6 for SDNR; 0.019 for RMSE; 3 s and 19 s for FWHM; and 42.9 and 130.4% for PSR were produced. SDNR gave the best sensitivity, specificity, precision, classification error and area under the curve values of 0.86, 0.86, 0.93, 14.2% and 0.83. Random forest was the best machine learning classifier, giving sensitivity, specificity, precision, classification error and area under the curve of 0.94, 0.83, 0.93, 9.3% and 0.89.
conclusionThe reviewers showed good agreement. Machine learning classifiers trained on signal-time course measures and QR can assess quality. Combining multiple measures reduces misclassification. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: A new automated quality control method was developed, which trained machine learning classifiers using QR results.
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.