ArticleScientific reports2023
MDF-Net for abnormality detection by fusing X-rays with clinical data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Improving Performance, Robustness, and Fairness of Radiographic AI Models with Finely-Controllable Synthetic Data.Research square · 2025Article
- Integrating clinical indications and patient demographics for multilabel abnormality classification and automated report generation in 3D chest CT scans.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Article
- The role of Open Access Data in democratizing healthcare AI: A pathway to research enhancement, patient well-being and treatment equity in Andalusia, Spain.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Advancing healthcare through multimodal data fusion: a comprehensive review of techniques and applications.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- RoMIA: a framework for creating Robust Medical Imaging AI models for chest radiographs.Frontiers in radiology · 2023Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of including patients' clinical information on the performance of deep learning (DL) classifiers for disease location in chest X-ray images. Although current classifiers achieve high performance using chest X-ray images alone, consultations with practicing radiologists indicate that clinical data is highly informative and essential for interpreting medical images and making proper diagnoses. In this work, we propose a novel architecture consisting of two fusion methods that enable the model to simultaneously process patients' clinical data (structured data) and chest X-rays (image data). Since these data modalities are in different dimensional spaces, we propose a spatial arrangement strategy, spatialization, to facilitate the multimodal learning process in a Mask R-CNN model. We performed an extensive experimental evaluation using MIMIC-Eye, a dataset comprising different modalities: MIMIC-CXR (chest X-ray images), MIMIC IV-ED (patients' clinical data), and REFLACX (annotations of disease locations in chest X-rays). Results show that incorporating patients' clinical data in a DL model together with the proposed fusion methods improves the disease localization in chest X-rays by 12% in terms of Average Precision compared to a standard Mask R-CNN using chest X-rays alone. Further ablation studies also emphasize the importance of multimodal DL architectures and the incorporation of patients' clinical data in disease localization. In the interest of fostering scientific reproducibility, the architecture proposed within this investigation has been made publicly accessible( https://github.com/ChihchengHsieh/multimodal-abnormalities-detection ).
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.