A Deep Learning–Based Approach to Reduce Rescan and Recall Rates in Clinical MRI Examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR imaging rescans and recalls can create large hospital revenue loss. The purpose of this study was to develop a fast, automated method for assessing rescan need in motion-corrupted brain series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A deep learning–based approach was developed, outputting a probability for a series to be clinically useful. Comparison of this per-series probability with a threshold, which can depend on scan indication and reading radiologist, determines whether a series needs to be rescanned. The deep learning classification performance was compared with that of 4 technologists and 5 radiologists in 49 test series with low and moderate motion artifacts. These series were assumed to be scanned for 2 scan indications: screening for multiple sclerosis and stroke. RESULTS: The image-quality rating was found to be scan indication– and reading radiologist–dependent. Of the 49 test datasets, technologists created a mean ratio of rescans/recalls of (4.7 ± 5.1)/(9.5 ± 6.8) for MS and (8.6 ± 7.7)/(1.6 ± 1.9) for stroke. With thresholds adapted for scan indication and reading radiologist, deep learning created a rescan/recall ratio of (7.3 ± 2.2)/(3.2 ± 2.5) for MS, and (3.6 ± 1.5)/(2.8 ± 1.6) for stroke. Due to the large variability in the technologists9 assessments, it was only the decrease in the recall rate for MS, for which the deep learning algorithm was trained, that was statistically significant (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Fast, automated deep learning–based image-quality rating can decrease rescan and recall rates, while rendering them technologist-independent. It was estimated that decreasing rescans and recalls from the technologists9 values to the values of deep learning could save hospitals $24,000/scanner/year.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".