Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41191081›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Application of multi-scale feature extraction and explainable machine learning in chest x-ray position evaluation within an integrated learning framework.

Chaowei Ma, Rui Peng, Bingjie Li, Dong Zhang, Rong Zhang, Zhiqing Zhang, Shaoyi Du, Yani Bai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Chaowei MaDepartment of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Rui PengDepartment of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Bingjie LiState Key Laboratory of Human-Machine Hybrid Augmented Intelligence, and Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Dong ZhangState Key Laboratory of Human-Machine Hybrid Augmented Intelligence, and Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Rong ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Zhiqing ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Shaoyi DuState Key Laboratory of Human-Machine Hybrid Augmented Intelligence, and Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. dushaoyi@xjtu.edu.cn.
Yani BaiDepartment of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China. byn207@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6080-211X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningMachine LearningPatient PositioningRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiography, ThoracicAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityChest X-rayMachine learningPositionQuality controlRandom forest

Identifiers

PMID41191081
PMCPMC13035635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.