ArticleHeliyon2023
Bayesian statistical modeling to predict observer-specific optimal windowing parameters in magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Heliyon, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance (MR) images require a process known as windowing for optimizing the display conditions. However, the conventional windowing process often fails to achieve the preferred display conditions for observers due to various factors. This study proposes a novel framework for predicting the preferred windowing parameters for each observer using Bayesian statistical modeling. MR images obtained from 1000 patients were divided into training and test sets at a 7:3 ratio. The image intensity and windowing parameters were standardized using previously reported methods. Bayesian statistical modeling was utilized to predict the windowing parameters preferred by three MR imaging (MRI) operators. The performance of the proposed framework was evaluated by assessing the mean relative error (MRE), mean absolute error (MAE), and Pearson's correlation coefficient (ρ) of the test set. In addition, the naive method, which presumes that the average value of the windowing parameters for each acquisition sequence and body region in the training set is optimal, was also used for comparison. Three MRI operators and three radiologists conducted visual assessments. The mean MRE, MAE, and
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.