ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
A Machine Learning Model Based on Global Mammographic Radiomic Features Can Predict Which Normal Mammographic Cases Radiology Trainees Find Most Difficult.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to investigate whether global mammographic radiomic features (GMRFs) can distinguish hardest- from easiest-to-interpret normal cases for radiology trainees (RTs). Data from 137 RTs were analysed, with each interpreting seven educational self-assessment test sets comprising 60 cases (40 normal and 20 cancer). The study only examined normal cases. Difficulty scores were computed based on the percentage of readers who incorrectly classified each case, leading to their classification as hardest- or easiest-to-interpret based on whether their difficulty scores fell within and above the 75th or within and below the 25th percentile, respectively (resulted in 140 cases in total used). Fifty-nine low-density and 81 high-density cases were identified. Thirty-four GMRFs were extracted for each case. A random forest machine learning model was trained to differentiate between hardest- and easiest-to-interpret normal cases and validated using leave-one-out-cross-validation approach. The model's performance was evaluated using the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Significant features were identified through feature importance analysis. Difference between hardest- and easiest-to-interpret cases among 34 GMRFs and in difficulty level between low- and high-density cases was tested using Kruskal-Wallis. The model achieved AUC = 0.75 with cluster prominence and range emerging as the most useful features. Fifteen GMRFs differed significantly (p < 0.05) between hardest- and easiest-to-interpret cases. Difficulty level among low- vs high-density cases did not differ significantly (p = 0.12). GMRFs can predict hardest-to-interpret normal cases for RTs, underscoring the importance of GMRFs in identifying the most difficult normal cases for RTs and facilitating customised training programmes tailored to trainees' learning needs.
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.