ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Deep Learning-Enabled Automated Quality Control for Liver MR Elastography: Initial Results.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025. 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.
- Automated liver magnetic resonance elastography quality control and liver stiffness measurement using deep learning.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral factors can impair image quality and reliability of liver magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), such as inadequate driver positioning, insufficient wave propagation and patient-related factors. PURPOSE: To report initial results on automatic classification of liver MRE image quality using various deep learning (DL) architectures. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective, single center, IRB-approved human study. POPULATION: Ninety patients (male = 51, mean age 52.8 ± 14.1 years). FIELD STRENGTHS/SEQUENCES: 1.5 T and 3 T MRI, 2D GRE, and 2D SE-EPI. ASSESSMENT: The curated dataset was comprised of 914 slices obtained from 149 MRE exams in 90 patients. Two independent observers examined the confidence map overlaid elastograms (CMOEs) for liver stiffness measurement and assigned a quality score (non-diagnostic vs. diagnostic) for each slice. Several DL architectures (ResNet18, ResNet34, ResNet50, SqueezeNet, and MobileNetV2) for binary quality classification of individual CMOE slice inputs were evaluated, using an 8-fold stratified cross-validation (800 slices) and a test dataset (114 slices). A majority vote ensemble combining the models' predictions of the highest-performing architecture was evaluated. STATISTICAL TEST: The inter-observer agreement and the agreement between DL models and one observer were assessed using Cohen's unweighted Kappa coefficient. Accuracy, precision, and recall of the cross-validation and the ensemble were calculated for the test dataset.
resultsThe average accuracy across the eight models trained using each architecture ranged from 0.692 to 0.851 for the test dataset. The ensemble of the best performing architecture (SqueezeNet) yielded an accuracy of 0.921. The inter-observer agreement was excellent (Kappa 0.896 [95% CI 0.845-0.947]). The agreement between observer 1 and the predictions of each SqueezeNet model was slight to almost perfect (Kappa range: 0.197-0.831) and almost perfect for the ensemble (Kappa: 0.833).
conclusionOur initial study demonstrates an automated DL-based approach for classifying liver 2D MRE diagnostic quality with an average accuracy of 0.851 (range 0.675-0.921) across the SqueezeNet models. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.