ArticleWorld journal of radiology2023
Methods for improving colorectal cancer annotation efficiency for artificial intelligence-observer training.
Article in World journal of radiology, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a deep-learning model to detect free air on abdominal computed tomography for surgical decision support.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMissing occult cancer lesions accounts for the most diagnostic errors in retrospective radiology reviews as early cancer can be small or subtle, making the lesions difficult to detect. Second-observer is the most effective technique for reducing these events and can be economically implemented with the advent of artificial intelligence (AI).
aimTo achieve appropriate AI model training, a large annotated dataset is necessary to train the AI models. Our goal in this research is to compare two methods for decreasing the annotation time to establish ground truth: Skip-slice annotation and AI-initiated annotation.
methodsWe developed a 2D U-Net as an AI second observer for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and an ensemble of 5 differently initiated 2D U-Net for ensemble technique. Each model was trained with 51 cases of annotated CRC computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis, tested with 7 cases, and validated with 20 cases from The Cancer Imaging Archive cases. The sensitivity, false positives per case, and estimated Dice coefficient were obtained for each method of training. We compared the two methods of annotations and the time reduction associated with the technique. The time differences were tested using Friedman's two-way analysis of variance.
resultsSparse annotation significantly reduces the time for annotation particularly skipping 2 slices at a time (
conclusionOur data support the sparse annotation technique as an efficient technique for reducing the time needed to establish the ground truth.
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.