ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated characterization of abdominal MRI exams using deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A knowledge-guided dual-path framework for automated liver MRI series classification.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- MultiModal craniocerebral diagnose based on 3D CT and image reports.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have revolutionized disease detection and treatment planning. However, the growing volume and complexity of MRI data-along with heterogeneity in imaging protocols, scanner technology, and labeling practices-creates a need for standardized tools to automatically identify and characterize key imaging attributes. Such tools are essential for large-scale, multi-institutional studies that rely on harmonized data to train robust machine learning models. In this study, we developed convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to automatically classify three core attributes of abdominal MRI: pulse sequence type, imaging orientation, and contrast enhancement status. Three distinct CNNs with similar backbone architectures were trained to classify single image slices into one of 12 pulse sequences, 4 orientations, or 2 contrast classes. The models achieved high classification accuracies of 99.51%, 99.87%, and 99.99% for pulse sequence, orientation, and contrast, respectively. We applied Grad-CAM to visualize image regions influencing pulse sequence predictions and highlight relevant anatomical features. To enhance performance, we implemented a majority voting approach to aggregate slice-level predictions, achieving 100% accuracy at the volume level for all tasks. External validation using the Duke Liver Dataset demonstrated strong generalizability; after adjusting for class label mismatch, volume-level accuracies exceeded 96.9% across all classification tasks.
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.