MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281677693 · doi:10.1002/jmri.28284

Automatic Detection of Meniscus Tears Using Backbone Convolutional Neural Networks on Knee <scp>MRI</scp>

2022· article· en· W4281677693 on OpenAlexaff
Truong Nguyen Khanh Hung, Vu Pham Thao Vy, Nguyễn Minh Trí, Le Ngoc Hoang, Lê Văn Tuấn, Quang Thai Ho, Nguyen Quoc Khanh Le, Jiunn‐Horng Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicMagnetic resonance imagingMeniscusCoronal planeComputer scienceSagittal planeConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceWilcoxon signed-rank testData setDiscriminative modelMann–Whitney U testMedicineRadiologyNuclear medicineMachine learningMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of meniscus injuries is key for preventing knee joint dysfunction and improving patient outcomes because it decreases morbidity and facilitates treatment planning. PURPOSE: To train and evaluate a deep learning model for automated detection of meniscus tears on knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). STUDY TYPE: Bicentric retrospective study. SUBJECTS: In total, 584 knee MRI studies, divided among training (n = 234), testing (n = 200), and external validation (n = 150) data sets, were used in this study. The public data set MRNet was used as a second external validation data set to evaluate the performance of the model. SEQUENCE: A 3 T, coronal, and sagittal images from T1-weighted proton density (PD) fast spin-echo (FSE) with fat saturation and T2-weighted FSE with fat saturation sequences. ASSESSMENT: The detection system for meniscus tear was based on the improved YOLOv4 model with Darknet-53 as the backbone. The performance of the model was also compared with that of three radiologists of varying levels of experience. The determination of the presence of a meniscus tear from surgery reports was used as the ground truth for the images. STATISTICAL TESTS: Sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy, and receiver operating characteristic curve were used to evaluate the performance of the detection model. Two-way analysis of variance, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Tukey's multiple tests were used to evaluate differences in performance between the model and radiologists. RESULTS: The overall accuracies for detecting meniscus tears using our model on the internal testing, internal validation, and external validation data sets were 95.4%, 95.8%, and 78.8%, respectively. One radiologist had significantly lower performance than our model in detecting meniscal tears (accuracy: 0.9025 ± 0.093 vs. 0.9580 ± 0.025). DATA CONCLUSION: The proposed model had high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting meniscus tears on knee MRIs. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207