ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Downstream-Aware Automated QC of Images and AI-Generated Segmentations.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated deep learning-based segmentation is increasingly used in medical imaging to enable rapid biomarker extraction. Manual quality control (QC) of segmentation outputs remains standard prior to downstream analysis. In autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), reliable segmentation is essential for accurate total kidney volume measurement, a key biomarker for disease monitoring. We developed and evaluated a 3D deep learning model that classified MR volumes and their automated segmentation outputs into downstream Accept, Reject, and Rework categories. Criteria included scan quality, native kidney coverage, and segmentation accuracy. We used a patient-disjoint dataset of 10,749 abdominal MR scans (T2-weighted coronal series) across 5708 exams from 2717 patients with ADPKD for model development. Model training utilized 9549 scans, and performance was validated on a balanced set of 600 scans against manual labels. A final balanced holdout test set of 600 scans was used for evaluation. Across three reader-defined reference standards, DenseNet121 achieved macro F1-scores of 0.78, 0.80, and 0.86 with accuracies of 79%, 80%, and 86% for R1, R2, and R3, respectively. Combined false-Accept rates were 23.3%, 23.4%, and 12.7%, respectively. Model/reference-standard agreement approached observed reference-standard variability. Multiclass classification models are a promising approach to assess MR scans and corresponding automated segmentations for downstream analysis. Further refined and externally validated derivatives of this model could support (i) clinical triage after automated segmentation to focus radiologist effort on flagged cases and (ii) expedited data curation in research studies where scan/segmentation review presents a significant bottleneck.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42625024What 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.