ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Outliers and anomalies in training and testing datasets for AI-powered morphometry-evidence from CT scans of the spleen.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Creating training and testing datasets for machine learning algorithms to measure linear dimensions of organs is a tedious task. There are no universally accepted methods for evaluating outliers or anomalies in such datasets. This can cause errors in machine learning and compromise the quality of end products. The goal of this study is to identify optimal methods for detecting organ anomalies and outliers in medical datasets designed to train and test neural networks in morphometrics. Methods: A dataset was created containing linear measurements of the spleen obtained from CT scans. Labelling was performed by three radiologists. The total number of studies included in the sample was Results: We identified measurement errors, input errors, abnormal size values and non-standard shapes of the organ (sickle-shaped, round, triangular, additional lobules). The most effective methods included visual techniques (including boxplots and histograms) and machine learning algorithms such is OSVM, KNN and autoencoders. A total of 32 outlier anomalies were found. Discussion: Curation of complex morphometric datasets must involve thorough mathematical and clinical analyses. Relying solely on mathematical statistics or machine learning methods appears inadequate.
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.