ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2024
Evaluating artificial intelligence for comparative radiography.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Novel Algorithm for Forensic Identification Using Geometric Cranial Patterns in Digital Lateral Cephalometric Radiographs in Forensic Dentistry.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionComparative radiography is a forensic identification and shortlisting technique based on the comparison of skeletal structures in ante-mortem and post-mortem images. The images (e.g., 2D radiographs or 3D computed tomographies) are manually superimposed and visually compared by a forensic practitioner. It requires a significant amount of time per comparison, limiting its utility in large comparison scenarios.
methodsWe propose and validate a novel framework for automating the shortlisting of candidates using artificial intelligence. It is composed of (1) a segmentation method to delimit skeletal structures' silhouettes in radiographs, (2) a superposition method to generate the best simulated "radiographs" from 3D images according to the segmented radiographs, and (3) a decision-making method for shortlisting all candidates ranked according to a similarity metric. MATERIAL: The dataset is composed of 180 computed tomographies and 180 radiographs where the frontal sinuses are visible. Frontal sinuses are the skeletal structure analyzed due to their high individualization capability.
resultsFirstly, we validate two deep learning-based techniques for segmenting the frontal sinuses in radiographs, obtaining high-quality results. Secondly, we study the framework's shortlisting capability using both automatic segmentations and superimpositions. The obtained superimpositions, based only on the superimposition metric, allowed us to filter out 40% of the possible candidates in a completely automatic manner. Thirdly, we perform a reliability study by comparing 180 radiographs against 180 computed tomographies using manual segmentations. The results allowed us to filter out 73% of the possible candidates. Furthermore, the results are robust to inter- and intra-expert-related errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37801115What 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.