Machine Learning Classification of Body Part, Imaging Axis, and Intravenous Contrast Enhancement on CT Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The development and evaluation of machine learning models that automatically identify the body part(s) imaged, axis of imaging, and the presence of intravenous contrast material of a CT series of images. Methods: This retrospective study included 6955 series from 1198 studies (501 female, 697 males, mean age 56.5 years) obtained between January 2010 and September 2021. Each series was annotated by a trained board-certified radiologist with labels consisting of 16 body parts, 3 imaging axes, and whether an intravenous contrast agent was used. The studies were randomly assigned to the training, validation and testing sets with a proportion of 70%, 20% and 10%, respectively, to develop a 3D deep neural network for each classification task. External validation was conducted with a total of 35,272 series from 7 publicly available datasets. The classification accuracy for each series was independently assessed for each task to evaluate model performance. Results: The accuracies for identifying the body parts, imaging axes, and the presence of intravenous contrast were 96.0% (95% CI: 94.6%, 97.2%), 99.2% (95% CI: 98.5%, 99.7%), and 97.5% (95% CI: 96.4%, 98.5%) respectively. The generalizability of the models was demonstrated through external validation with accuracies of 89.7 - 97.8%, 98.6 - 100%, and 87.8 - 98.6% for the same tasks. Conclusions: The developed models demonstrated high performance on both internal and external testing in identifying key aspects of a CT series.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".