ArticleAcademic radiology2025
Automated Classification of Body MRI Sequences Using Convolutional Neural Networks.
Article in Academic radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A knowledge-guided dual-path framework for automated liver MRI series classification.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Automated identification of MRI series using a hierarchical modular machine-learning pipeline.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Automated characterization of abdominal MRI exams using deep learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Automatic sequence identification in multicentric prostate multiparametric MRI datasets for clinical machine-learning.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Classification of Multi-Parametric Body MRI Series Using Deep Learning.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2024Article
- Brain MRI sequence and view plane identification using deep learning.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesMulti-parametric MRI (mpMRI) studies of the body are routinely acquired in clinical practice. However, a standardized naming convention for MRI protocols and series does not exist currently. Conflicts in the series descriptions present in the DICOM headers arise due to myriad MRI scanners from various manufacturers used for imaging, wide variations in imaging practices across institutions, and technologist preferences. These conflicts affect the hanging protocol, which dictates the arrangement of sequences for the reading radiologist. At present, clinician supervision is necessary to ensure that the correct sequence is being read and used for diagnosis. This pilot work seeks to classify five different series in mpMRI studies acquired at the levels of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. MATERIALS AND
methodsFirst, 2D and 3D classification networks were compared using data acquired by Siemens scanners and the optimal network was identified. Then, its performance was analyzed when trained with different training data quantities. The out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness on data acquired by a Philips scanner was also measured. In addition, the effect of data augmentation on model training was studied. The model was also tested with smaller input volumes through downsampling or cropping. Finally, the model was trained on combined data from both Siemens and Philips scanners to bridge the performance gap between different scanners.
resultsAmong 2D and 3D networks of ResNet-50, ResNet-101, DenseNet- 121, and EfficientNet-BN0, the 3D DenseNet-121 ensemble achieved an F
conclusionOur pilot work is useful for the classification of MRI sequences in studies acquired at the level of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. It has the potential for robust automation of hanging protocols and the creation of large-scale data cohorts for pre-clinical research.
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.