Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41102427›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025

A Machine Learning System to Automate Body Computed Tomography Protocoling.

Peyman Shokrollahi, Juan M Zambrano Chavez, Jonathan P H Lam, Avishkar A Sharma, Debashish Pal, Naeim Bahrami, Sergios Gatidis, Akshay S Chaudhari, Andreas M Loening

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Peyman ShokrollahiSchool of Medicine, Radiology Department, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. pshokrol@stanford.edu.
Juan M Zambrano ChavezSchool of Medicine, Radiology Department, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Jonathan P H LamSchool of Medicine, Radiology Department, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Avishkar A SharmaSchool of Medicine, Radiology Department, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Debashish PalGE Healthcare, 1283 Mountain View, Alviso Rd, Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, USA.
Naeim BahramiGE Healthcare, 1283 Mountain View, Alviso Rd, Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, USA.
Sergios GatidisSchool of Medicine, Radiology Department, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Akshay S ChaudhariSchool of Medicine, Radiology Department, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Andreas M LoeningSchool of Medicine, Radiology Department, Stanford University, 1201 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selection of radiology imaging protocols is a vital step in the radiology workflow as incorrect protocol selection can lead to suboptimal imaging and thereby jeopardize patient health, delay treatments, and/or increase healthcare costs. However, this process is generally thought of as an inefficient use of radiologist's time. We developed a machine learning (ML) system that can predict radiology protocols accurately based on patients' electronic medical record (EMR) data. The system is an ensemble of three decision tree (DT)-based techniques trained to provide protocols for body computed tomography (CT) examinations. The most common 15 CT abdomen protocols were used to tune the models, with the system designed to provide the three most probable predictions for further radiologist revision. Our ensemble classifier, with the F1 score of approximately 83%, outperformed each model with the mean F1 score of approximately 80% in 5-fold cross-validation and performed the best with an F1 score of 95.5% for the top three predictions, surpassing the individual models with F1 scores ranging from 87.6% to 92.9%. In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that ML techniques can predict radiology protocols and identify key classification-dependent features. These models could be leveraged for use as a clinical decision support system to improve radiologists' efficiency.

Indexed as

And Radiology ProtocolBoosting ModelsComputed TomographyDecision-Support SystemDecision Tree ModelsMachine Learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.