Deep Learning Body Region Classification of MRI and CT Examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study demonstrates the high performance of deep learning in identification of body regions covering the entire human body from magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomography (CT) axial images across diverse acquisition protocols and modality manufacturers. Pixel-based analysis of anatomy contained in image sets can provide accurate anatomic labeling. For this purpose, a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based classifier was developed to identify body regions in CT and MRI studies. Seventeen CT (18 MRI) body regions covering the entire human body were defined for the classification task. Three retrospective datasets were built for the AI model training, validation, and testing, with a balanced distribution of studies per body region. The test datasets originated from a different healthcare network than the train and validation datasets. Sensitivity and specificity of the classifier was evaluated for patient age, patient sex, institution, scanner manufacturer, contrast, slice thickness, MRI sequence, and CT kernel. The data included a retrospective cohort of 2891 anonymized CT cases (training, 1804 studies; validation, 602 studies; test, 485 studies) and 3339 anonymized MRI cases (training, 1911 studies; validation, 636 studies; test, 792 studies). Twenty-seven institutions from primary care hospitals, community hospitals, and imaging centers contributed to the test datasets. The data included cases of all sexes in equal proportions and subjects aged from 18 years old to + 90 years old. Image-level weighted sensitivity of 92.5% (92.1-92.8) for CT and 92.3% (92.0-92.5) for MRI and weighted specificity of 99.4% (99.4-99.5) for CT and 99.2% (99.1-99.2) for MRI were achieved. Deep learning models can classify CT and MR images by body region including lower and upper extremities with high accuracy.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".