ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2024
Utility of machine learning for identifying stapes fixation on ultra-high-resolution CT.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photon-counting detector computed tomography in thoracic oncology: revolutionizing tumor imaging through precision and detail.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Review
- Efficacy of endoscopic removal of anterior malleolar ligament calcification combined with tympanic membrane repair for the treatment of conductive hearing loss.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Stapes footplate's posterior border protrudes the vestibule in healthy ears: anatomical insights from ultra-high-resolution CT.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeImaging diagnosis of stapes fixation (SF) is challenging owing to a lack of definite evidence. We developed a comprehensive machine learning (ML) model to identify SF on ultra-high-resolution CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 109 participants (143 ears) and divided them into the training set (115 ears) and test set (28 ears). Stapes mobility (SF or non-SF) was determined by surgical inspection. In the ML analysis, rectangular regions of interest were placed on consecutive axial slices in the training set. Radiomic features were extracted and fed into the training session. The test set was analyzed using 7 ML models (support vector machine, k nearest neighbor, decision tree, random forest, extra trees, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and Light Gradient Boosting Machine) and by 2 dedicated neuroradiologists. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, with surgical findings as the reference) was compared between the radiologists and the optimal ML model by using the McNemar test.
resultsThe mean age of the participants was 42.3 ± 17.5 years. The Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) model showed the highest sensitivity (0.83), specificity (0.81), accuracy (0.82) and area under the curve (0.88) for detecting SF among the 7 ML models. The neuroradiologists achieved good sensitivities (0.75 and 0.67), moderate-to-good specificities (0.63 and 0.56) and good accuracies (0.68 and 0.61). This model showed no statistical differences with the neuroradiologists (P values 0.289-1.000).
conclusionsCompared to the neuroradiologists, the LightGBM model achieved competitive diagnostic performance in identifying SF, and has the potential to be a supportive tool in clinical practice.
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.