MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282978406 · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.861791

Automatic Artifact Detection Algorithm in Fetal MRI

2022· article· en· W4282978406 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Lim, Justin Lo, Matthias Wagner, Birgit Ertl‐Wagner, Dafna Sussman

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Metropolitan UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceArtifact (error)Artificial intelligenceResidualPattern recognition (psychology)Process (computing)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fetal MR imaging is subject to artifacts including motion, chemical shift, and radiofrequency artifacts. Currently, such artifacts are detected by the MRI operator, a process which is subjective, time consuming, and prone to errors. We propose a novel algorithm, RISE-Net, that can consistently, automatically, and objectively detect artifacts in 3D fetal MRI. It makes use of a CNN ensemble approach where the first CNN aims to identify and classify any artifacts in the image, and the second CNN uses regression to determine the severity of the detected artifacts. The main mechanism in RISE-Net is the stacked Residual, Inception, Squeeze and Excitation (RISE) blocks. This classification network achieved an accuracy of 90.34% and a F1 score of 90.39% and outperformed other state-of-the-art architectures, such as VGG-16, Inception, ResNet-50, ReNet-Inception, SE-ResNet, and SE-Inception. The severity regression network had an MSE of 0.083 across all classes. The presented algorithm facilitates rapid and accurate fetal MRI quality assurance that can be implemented into clinical use.

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)0.000
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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Artificial IntelligenceSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207