Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37278918›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2023

Visual Image Annotation for Bowel Obstruction: Repeatability and Agreement with Manual Annotation and Neural Networks.

Paul M Murphy

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Paul M MurphyUniversity of California-San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, 92093, La Jolla, CA, USA. pmmurphy@health.ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2563-3552

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bowel obstruction is a common cause of acute abdominal pain. The development of algorithms for automated detection and characterization of bowel obstruction on CT has been limited by the effort required for manual annotation. Visual image annotation with an eye tracking device may mitigate that limitation. The purpose of this study is to assess the agreement between visual and manual annotations for bowel segmentation and diameter measurement, and to assess agreement with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained using that data. Sixty CT scans of 50 patients with bowel obstruction from March to June 2022 were retrospectively included and partitioned into training and test data sets. An eye tracking device was used to record 3-dimensional coordinates within the scans, while a radiologist cast their gaze at the centerline of the bowel, and adjusted the size of a superimposed ROI to approximate the diameter of the bowel. For each scan, 59.4 ± 15.1 segments, 847.9 ± 228.1 gaze locations, and 5.8 ± 1.2 m of bowel were recorded. 2d and 3d CNNs were trained using this data to predict bowel segmentation and diameter maps from the CT scans. For comparisons between two repetitions of visual annotation, CNN predictions, and manual annotations, Dice scores for bowel segmentation ranged from 0.69 ± 0.17 to 0.81 ± 0.04 and intraclass correlations [95% CI] for diameter measurement ranged from 0.672 [0.490-0.782] to 0.940 [0.933-0.947]. Thus, visual image annotation is a promising technique for training CNNs to perform bowel segmentation and diameter measurement in CT scans of patients with bowel obstruction.

Indexed as

Data CurationIntestinal ObstructionAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeural Networks, ComputerRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedBowel obstructionConvolutional neural networksEye trackingQuantificationSegmentation

Identifiers

PMID37278918
PMCPMC10502000

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.