ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Application of multi-scale feature extraction and explainable machine learning in chest x-ray position evaluation within an integrated learning framework.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Predictive imaging in abdominal oncology: current trends and future directions.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study presents a novel deep learning-machine learning fusion network for quantitative and interpretable assessment of chest X-ray positioning, aiming to analyze critical factors in patient positioning layout. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed 3300 chest radiographs from a Chinese medical institution, collected between March 2021-December 2022. The dataset was partitioned into the XJ_chest_21 subset for training automated segmentation model and the XJ_chest_22 subset to validate three classification models: Random Forest Fusion Network (RFFN), Threshold Classification (TC), and Multivariate Logistic Regression (MLR). After automatically measuring five positioning indicators in the images, the data were input into the models to assess positioning quality. We compared the performance metrics of the three classification models, including AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) was utilized to interpret feature importance in the decision-making process of the RFFN model. We evaluated measurement consistency between the Automated Measurement Model (AMM) and radiologists.
resultsU-net++ demonstrated significantly superior performance compared to U-net in multi-target segmentation accuracy (mean Dice: 0.926 vs. 0.812). The five positioning metrics showed excellent agreement between AMM and reference standards (r = 0.93). ROC analysis indicated that RFFN performed significantly better in overall image quality classification (AUC, 0.982; 95% CI: 0.963, 0.993) compared to both TC (AUC, 0.959; 95% CI: 0.923, 0.995) and MLR (AUC, 0.953; 95% CI: 0.933, 0.974).
conclusionOur study introduces a novel segmentation-based random forest fusion network that achieves accurate image positioning classification and identifies critical operational factors. Furthermore, the clinical interpretability of the fusion model was enhanced through the application of the SHAP method. KEY POINTS: Question How can AI-driven interpretable methods be utilized to assess patient positioning in chest radiography and enhance radiographers' accuracy? Findings The Random Forest Fusion Network (RFFN) outperformed Threshold Classification (TC) and Multivariate Logistic Regression (MLR) in positioning classification (AUC = 0.98). Clinical relevance An integrated framework that combines deep learning and machine learning achieves accurate image positioning classification, identifies critical operational factors, enables expert-level image quality assessment, and delivers automated feedback to radiographers.
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.