ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023
Evaluation of deep learning models for quality control of MR spectra.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: While 3D MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) provides valuable spatial metabolic information, one of the hurdles for clinical translation is its interpretation, with voxel-wise quality control (QC) as an essential and the most time-consuming step. This work evaluates the accuracy of machine learning (ML) models for automated QC filtering of individual spectra from 3D healthy control and patient datasets. Methods: A total of 53 3D MRSI datasets from prior studies (30 neurological diseases, 13 brain tumors, and 10 healthy controls) were included in the study. Three ML models were evaluated: a random forest classifier (RF), a convolutional neural network (CNN), and an inception CNN (ICNN) along with two hybrid models: CNN + RF, ICNN + RF. QC labels used for training were determined manually through consensus of two MRSI experts. Normalized and cropped real-valued spectra was used as input. A cross-validation approach was used to separate datasets into training/validation/testing sets of aggregated voxels. Results: All models achieved a minimum AUC of 0.964 and accuracy of 0.910. In datasets from neurological disease and controls, the CNN model produced the highest AUC (0.982), while the RF model achieved the highest AUC in patients with brain tumors (0.976). Within tumor lesions, which typically exhibit abnormal metabolism, the CNN AUC was 0.973 while that of the RF was 0.969. Data quality inference times were on the order of seconds for an entire 3D dataset, offering drastic time reduction compared to manual labeling. Conclusion: ML methods accurately and rapidly performed automated QC. Results in tumors highlights the applicability to a variety of metabolic conditions.
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.