Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053121›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025

Clinician-driven automated data preprocessing in nuclear medicine AI environments.

Denis Krajnc, Clemens P Spielvogel, Boglarka Ecsedi, Zsombor Ritter, H Alizadeh, Marcus Hacker, Laszlo Papp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Denis KrajncCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Clemens P SpielvogelDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Boglarka EcsediCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Zsombor RitterDepartment of Medical Imaging, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
H AlizadehMedical School, 1st Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Marcus HackerDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Laszlo PappCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. laszlo.papp@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-9049-9989

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) approaches in clinical science require extensive data preprocessing (DP) steps prior to building AI models. Establishing DP pipelines is a non-trivial task, mainly driven by purely mathematical rules and done by data scientists. Nevertheless, clinician presence shall be paramount at this step. The study proposes a data preprocessing approach driven by clinical domain knowledge, where clinician input, in form of explicit and non-explicit rules, directly impacts the algorithms' decision-making processes, thus, making the DP planning phase more inclusive for clinicians.

methodsThe rule set table (RST) was introduced as interface which accepts clinician's input as formal rules (including four actions: exp-keep, exp-remove, pref-keep, pref-remove features or samples) in human-readable form and translates it to machine readable input for preprocessing algorithms. A collection of commonly used algorithms was incorporated for data preprocessing of various clinical cohorts in both single and multi-center scenarios. The impact of RST was evaluated by utilizing 100-fold Monte Carlo cross-validation scheme for prostate and glioma cohorts (single center) with 80 - 20% training-testing split. Furthermore, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cohort was evaluated by using Center 1 as training and Center 2 as testing cohort for clinical endpoint prediction. Both scenarios were investigated in manual and automated data preprocessing setups across all cohorts. The XGBoost algorithm was employed for classification tasks across all established models. Predictive performance was estimated by confusion matrix analysis in validation samples of all cohorts. The performance of RST across all actions as well as without RST were compared in both manual and automated settings for each respective cohort.

resultsPerformance increase of ML models with manual preprocessing combined with RST was up-to 18% balanced accuracy (BACC) compared to models without RST. The ML models with "exp-keep" and "pref-keep" instructions showed highest performance increase of + 18% BACC (glioma), + 6% BACC (prostate) and + 3% BACC (DLBCL) compared to other models across all datasets.

conclusionThe study demonstrated the added value of RST in predictive performance of oncology-specific ML models, hence, serving as proof of concept of a more inclusive clinician-driven DP process in future studies.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNuclear MedicineAlgorithmsAutomationHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsAICancerData preprocessingImaging analysis

Identifiers

PMID40053121
PMCPMC12222405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.