Machine learning based prediction of image quality in prostate MRI using rapid localizer images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Diagnostic performance of prostate MRI depends on high-quality imaging. Prostate MRI quality is inversely proportional to the amount of rectal gas and distention. Early detection of poor-quality MRI may enable intervention to remove gas or exam rescheduling, saving time. We developed a machine learning based quality prediction of yet-to-be acquired MRI images solely based on MRI rapid localizer sequence, which can be acquired in a few seconds. Approach: The dataset consists of 213 (147 for training and 64 for testing) prostate sagittal T2-weighted (T2W) MRI localizer images and rectal content, manually labeled by an expert radiologist. Each MRI localizer contains seven two-dimensional (2D) slices of the patient, accompanied by manual segmentations of rectum for each slice. Cascaded and end-to-end deep learning models were used to predict the quality of yet-to-be T2W, DWI, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) MRI images. Predictions were compared to quality scores determined by the experts using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and intra-class correlation coefficient. Results: In the test set of 64 patients, optimal versus suboptimal exams occurred in 95.3% (61/64) versus 4.7% (3/64) for T2W, 90.6% (58/64) versus 9.4% (6/64) for DWI, and 89.1% (57/64) versus 10.9% (7/64) for ADC. The best performing segmentation model was 2D U-Net with ResNet-34 encoder and ImageNet weights. The best performing classifier was the radiomics based classifier. Conclusions: A radiomics based classifier applied to localizer images achieves accurate diagnosis of subsequent image quality for T2W, DWI, and ADC prostate MRI sequences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".