Performance of the Winning Algorithms of the RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate and report the performance of the winning algorithms of the Radiological Society of North America Cervical Spine Fracture AI Challenge. Materials and Methods The competition was open to the public on Kaggle from July 28 to October 27, 2022. A sample of 3112 CT scans with and without cervical spine fractures (CSFx) were assembled from multiple sites (12 institutions across six continents) and prepared for the competition. The test set had 1093 scans (private test set: n = 789; mean age, 53.40 years ± 22.86 [SD]; 509 males; public test set: n = 304; mean age, 52.51 years ± 20.73; 189 males) and 847 fractures. The eight top-performing artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms were retrospectively evaluated, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value, F1 score, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Results A total of 1108 contestants composing 883 teams worldwide participated in the competition. The top eight AI models showed high performance, with a mean AUC value of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.96), mean F1 score of 90% (95% CI: 90%, 91%), mean sensitivity of 88% (95% Cl: 86%, 90%), and mean specificity of 94% (95% CI: 93%, 96%). The highest values reported for previous models were an AUC of 0.85, F1 score of 81%, sensitivity of 76%, and specificity of 97%. Conclusion The competition successfully facilitated the development of AI models that could detect and localize CSFx on CT scans with high performance outcomes, which appear to exceed known values of previously reported models. Further study is needed to evaluate the generalizability of these models in a clinical environment. Keywords: Cervical Spine, Fracture Detection, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence Algorithms, CT, Head/Neck Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".