DeepDicomSort: An Automatic Sorting Algorithm for Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing size of datasets used in medical imaging research, the need for automated data curation is arising. One important data curation task is the structured organization of a dataset for preserving integrity and ensuring reusability. Therefore, we investigated whether this data organization step can be automated. To this end, we designed a convolutional neural network (CNN) that automatically recognizes eight different brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan types based on visual appearance. Thus, our method is unaffected by inconsistent or missing scan metadata. It can recognize pre-contrast T1-weighted (T1w),post-contrast T1-weighted (T1wC), T2-weighted (T2w), proton density-weighted (PDw) and derived maps (e.g. apparent diffusion coefficient and cerebral blood flow). In a first experiment,we used scans of subjects with brain tumors: 11065 scans of 719 subjects for training, and 2369 scans of 192 subjects for testing. The CNN achieved an overall accuracy of 98.7%. In a second experiment, we trained the CNN on all 13434 scans from the first experiment and tested it on 7227 scans of 1318 Alzheimer's subjects. Here, the CNN achieved an overall accuracy of 98.5%. In conclusion, our method can accurately predict scan type, and can quickly and automatically sort a brain MRI dataset virtually without the need for manual verification. In this way, our method can assist with properly organizing a dataset, which maximizes the shareability and integrity of the data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".