ArticleKidney international reports2024
Deep Learning-Based Automated Imaging Classification of ADPKD.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Prediction of Progression to Dialysis in Patients With Polycystic Kidney Disease: Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Epithelial Dynamics of Cystogenesis in Genetic Models of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease.Cells · 2026Article
- Natural history of simple and complex cysts in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease on MRI.Communications medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The Mayo imaging classification model (MICM) requires a prestep qualitative assessment to determine whether a patient is in class 1 (typical) or class 2 (atypical), where patients assigned to class 2 are excluded from the MICM application. Methods: We developed a deep learning-based method to automatically classify class 1 and 2 from magnetic resonance (MR) images and provide classification confidence utilizing abdominal Results: The proposed method showed excellent performance for the classification of class 1 (97.7%) and 2 (100%), where the combined test accuracy was 98.01%. The precision and recall for predicting class 1 were 1.00 and 0.98, respectively, with Conclusion: The proposed automated method can classify class 1 and 2 cases as accurately as the level of a human expert. This method may be a useful tool to facilitate clinical trials investigating different types of kidney morphology and for clinical management of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD).
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.