ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
A statistical approach to automated analysis of the low-contrast object detectability test for the large ACR MRI phantom.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- A statistical approach to automated analysis of the low-contrast object detectability test for the large ACR MRI phantom.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegular quality control checks are essential to ensure the quality of MRI systems. The American College of Radiology (ACR) has developed a standardized large phantom test protocol for this purpose. However, the ACR protocol recommends manual measurements, which are time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to variability, impacting accuracy and reproducibility. Although some aspects of the ACR evaluation have been automated or semi-automated, tests like low-contrast object detectability (LCOD), remain challenging to automate. LCOD involves assessing the visibility of objects at various contrast levels. PURPOSE: The purpose of this research is to propose and evaluate an automated approach for LCOD testing in MRI.
methodsThe automated Python code generates a one-dimensional profile of image intensities along radial paths from the center of the contrast disk. These profiles are compared to templates created from the disc's geometric information using general linear model statistical tests. A total of 80 image volumes (40 T1- and 40 T2-weighted) were assessed twice by two human evaluators and the proposed Python code.
resultsHuman raters showed intra-rater variability (Cohen's Kappa 0.941, 0.962), while the Python code exhibited perfect intra-rater agreement. Inter-rater agreement between the code and humans was comparable to human-to-human agreement (Cohen's Kappa 0.878 between the two human raters vs. 0.945, and 0.783 between the code and human raters). A stress test revealed both human raters and the code assigned higher scores to lower bandwidth images and lower scores to higher bandwidth images.
conclusionThe proposed automated method eliminates intra-rater variability and achieves strong inter-rater agreement with human raters. These findings suggest the method is reliable and suitable for clinical settings, showing high concordance with human assessments.
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.