Machine Learning Detection and Characterization of Splenic Injuries on Abdominal Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multi-detector contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) allows for the accurate detection and classification of traumatic splenic injuries, leading to improved patient management. Their effective use requires rapid study interpretation, which can be a challenge on busy emergency radiology services. A machine learning system has the potential to automate the process, potentially leading to a faster clinical response. This study aimed to create such a system. METHOD: Using the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), spleen injuries were classified into 3 classes: normal, low-grade (AAST grade I-III) injuries, and high-grade (AAST grade IV and V) injuries. Employing a 2-stage machine learning strategy, spleens were initially segmented from input CT images and subsequently underwent classification via a 3D dense convolutional neural network (DenseNet). RESULTS: This single-centre retrospective study involved trauma protocol CT scans performed between January 1, 2005, and July 31, 2021, totaling 608 scans with splenic injuries and 608 without. Five board-certified fellowship-trained abdominal radiologists utilizing the AAST injury scoring scale established ground truth labels. The model achieved AUC values of 0.84, 0.69, and 0.90 for normal, low-grade injuries, and high-grade splenic injuries, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of automating spleen injury detection using our method with potential applications in improving patient care through radiologist worklist prioritization and injury stratification. Future endeavours should concentrate on further enhancing and optimizing our approach and testing its use in a real-world clinical environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".