1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Image Quality Assessment to Emulate Experts’ Perception in Lumbar MRI Using Machine Learning

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Medical image quality is crucial to obtaining reliable diagnostics. Most quality controls rely on routine tests using phantoms, which do not reflect closely the reality of images obtained on patients and do not reflect directly the quality perceived by radiologists. The purpose of this work is to develop a method that classifies the image quality perceived by radiologists in MR images. The focus was set on lumbar images as they are widely used with different challenges. Three neuroradiologists evaluated the image quality of a dataset that included T1-weighting images in axial and sagittal orientation, and sagittal T2-weighting. In parallel, we introduced the computational assessment using a wide range of features extracted from the images, then fed them into a classifier system. A total of 95 exams were used, from our local hospital and a public database, and part of the images was manipulated to broaden the distribution quality of the dataset. Good recall of 82% and an area under curve (AUC) of 77% were obtained on average in testing condition, using a Support Vector Machine. Even though the actual implementation still relies on user interaction to extract features, the results are promising with respect to a potential implementation for monitoring image quality online with the acquisition process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Image processing and Quality Control for the first 10,000 brain imaging datasets from UK Biobank

            UK Biobank is a large-scale prospective epidemiological study with all data accessible to researchers worldwide. It is currently in the process of bringing back 100,000 of the original participants for brain, heart and body MRI, carotid ultrasound and low-dose bone/fat x-ray. The brain imaging component covers 6 modalities (T1, T2 FLAIR, susceptibility weighted MRI, Resting fMRI, Task fMRI and Diffusion MRI). Raw and processed data from the first 10,000 imaged subjects has recently been released for general research access. To help convert this data into useful summary information we have developed an automated processing and QC (Quality Control) pipeline that is available for use by other researchers. In this paper we describe the pipeline in detail, following a brief overview of UK Biobank brain imaging and the acquisition protocol. We also describe several quantitative investigations carried out as part of the development of both the imaging protocol and the processing pipeline.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

              Objective Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. Methodology and Main Finding Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. Conclusion The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                ASPCC7
                Applied Sciences
                Applied Sciences
                MDPI AG
                2076-3417
                July 2021
                July 19 2021
                : 11
                : 14
                : 6616
                Article
                10.3390/app11146616
                fc4f3413-fec9-4ac0-ba42-32636044f5e7
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article