MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406174903 · doi:10.2214/ajr.24.32076

Machine Learning to Detect Cervical Spine Fractures Missed by Radiologists on CT: Analysis Using Seven Award-Winning Models From the 2022 RSNA Cervical Spine Fracture AI Challenge

2025· article· en· W4406174903 on OpenAlexaff
Yingming Amy Chen, Zixuan Hu, Kevin Shek, Jefferson R. Wilson, Fahad E. Alotaibi, Christopher D. Witiw, Hui Ming Lin, Robyn L. Ball, Markand Patel, Shobhit Mathur, Ervin Sejdić, Errol Colak

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNorth York General HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervical spineRadiologyCervical vertebraeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND. Available data on radiologists' missed cervical spine fractures are based primarily on studies using human reviewers to identify errors on reevaluation; such studies do not capture the full extent of missed fractures.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of RoentgenologySame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207