ArticleInsights into imaging2024
Curation of myeloma observational study MALIMAR using XNAT: solving the challenges posed by real-world data.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMAchine Learning In MyelomA Response (MALIMAR) is an observational clinical study combining "real-world" and clinical trial data, both retrospective and prospective. Images were acquired on three MRI scanners over a 10-year window at two institutions, leading to a need for extensive curation.
methodsCuration involved image aggregation, pseudonymisation, allocation between project phases, data cleaning, upload to an XNAT repository visible from multiple sites, annotation, incorporation of machine learning research outputs and quality assurance using programmatic methods.
resultsA total of 796 whole-body MR imaging sessions from 462 subjects were curated. A major change in scan protocol part way through the retrospective window meant that approximately 30% of available imaging sessions had properties that differed significantly from the remainder of the data. Issues were found with a vendor-supplied clinical algorithm for "composing" whole-body images from multiple imaging stations. Historic weaknesses in a digital video disk (DVD) research archive (already addressed by the mid-2010s) were highlighted by incomplete datasets, some of which could not be completely recovered. The final dataset contained 736 imaging sessions for 432 subjects. Software was written to clean and harmonise data. Implications for the subsequent machine learning activity are considered.
conclusionsMALIMAR exemplifies the vital role that curation plays in machine learning studies that use real-world data. A research repository such as XNAT facilitates day-to-day management, ensures robustness and consistency and enhances the value of the final dataset. The types of process described here will be vital for future large-scale multi-institutional and multi-national imaging projects. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This article showcases innovative data curation methods using a state-of-the-art image repository platform; such tools will be vital for managing the large multi-institutional datasets required to train and validate generalisable ML algorithms and future foundation models in medical imaging. KEY POINTS: • Heterogeneous data in the MALIMAR study required the development of novel curation strategies. • Correction of multiple problems affecting the real-world data was successful, but implications for machine learning are still being evaluated. • Modern image repositories have rich application programming interfaces enabling data enrichment and programmatic QA, making them much more than simple "image marts".
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.