ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Quality control system for patient positioning and filling in meta-information for chest X-ray examinations.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDuring radiography, irregularities occur, leading to decrease in the diagnostic value of the images obtained. The purpose of this work was to develop a system for automated quality assurance of patient positioning in chest radiographs, with detection of suboptimal contrast, brightness, and metadata errors.
methodsThe quality assurance system was trained and tested using more than 69,000 X-rays of the chest and other anatomical areas from the Unified Radiological Information Service (URIS) and several open datasets. Our dataset included studies regardless of a patient's gender and race, while the sole exclusion criterion being age below 18 years. A training dataset of radiographs labeled by expert radiologists was used to train an ensemble of modified deep convolutional neural networks architectures ResNet152V2 and VGG19 to identify various quality deficiencies. Model performance was accessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy metrics.
resultsSeven neural network models were trained to classify radiographs by the following quality deficiencies: failure to capture the target anatomic region, chest rotation, suboptimal brightness, incorrect anatomical area, projection errors, and improper photometric interpretation. All metrics for each model exceed 95%, indicating high predictive value. All models were combined into a unified system for evaluating radiograph quality. The processing time per image is approximately 3 s.
conclusionThe system supports multiple use cases: integration into an automated radiographic workstations, external quality assurance system for radiology departments, acquisition quality audits for municipal health systems, and routing of studies to diagnostic AI models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40531386What 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.