MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380046642 · doi:10.1117/1.jmi.10.3.034003

Automatic measurement of kidney dimensions in two-dimensional ultrasonography is comparable to expert sonographers

2023· article· en· W4380046642 on OpenAlexafffund
Rohit Singla, Cailin Ringstrom, Ricky Hu, Zoe Hu, Victoria A. Lessoway, Janice Reid, Christopher Nguan, Robert Rohling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Imaging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineUltrasonographyRadiologyMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PurposeLength and width measurements of the kidneys aid in the detection and monitoring of structural abnormalities and organ disease. Manual measurement results in intra- and inter-rater variability, is complex and time-consuming, and is fraught with error. We propose an automated approach based on machine learning for quantifying kidney dimensions from two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound images in both native and transplanted kidneys.ApproachAn nnU-net machine learning model was trained on 514 images to segment the kidney capsule in standard longitudinal and transverse views. Two expert sonographers and three medical students manually measured the maximal kidney length and width in 132 ultrasound cines. The segmentation algorithm was then applied to the same cines, region fitting was performed, and the maximum kidney length and width were measured. Additionally, single kidney volume for 16 patients was estimated using either manual or automatic measurements.ResultsThe experts resulted in length of 84.8 ± 26.4 mm [95% CI: 80.0, 89.6] and a width of 51.8 ± 10.5 mm [49.9, 53.7]. The algorithm resulted a length of 86.3 ± 24.4 [81.5, 91.1] and a width of 47.1 ± 12.8 [43.6, 50.6]. Experts, novices, and the algorithm did not statistically significant differ from one another (p > 0.05). Bland–Altman analysis showed the algorithm produced a mean difference of 2.6 mm (SD = 1.2) from experts, compared to novices who had a mean difference of 3.7 mm (SD = 2.9 mm). For volumes, mean absolute difference was 47 mL (31%) consistent with ∼1 mm error in all three dimensions.ConclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an automatic tool to measure in vivo kidney biometrics of length, width, and volume from standard 2D ultrasound views with comparable accuracy and reproducibility to expert sonographers. Such a tool may enhance workplace efficiency, assist novices, and aid in tracking disease progression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical ImagingSame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207