MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409351262 · doi:10.1117/1.jmi.12.5.051803

Correlation of objective image quality metrics with radiologists’ diagnostic confidence depends on the clinical task performed

2025· article· en· W4409351262 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle C. Pryde, James Rioux, Elena Adela Cora, David Volders, Matthias H. Schmidt, Mohammed Abdolell, Chris V. Bowen, Steven Beyea

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch Nova ScotiaDalhousie UniversityExxon Mobil Corporation
KeywordsMedicineCorrelationImage qualityConfidence intervalQuality (philosophy)Medical physicsRadiologyTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Objective image quality metrics (IQMs) are widely used as outcome measures to assess acquisition and reconstruction strategies for diagnostic images. For nonpathological magnetic resonance (MR) images, these IQMs correlate to varying degrees with expert radiologists' confidence scores of overall perceived diagnostic image quality. However, it is unclear whether IQMs also correlate with task-specific diagnostic image quality or expert radiologists' confidence in performing a specific diagnostic task, which calls into question their use as surrogates for radiologist opinion. Approach: ) and reconstructed via compressed sensing. Three neuroradiologists reported the presence/absence of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and assigned a Fazekas score describing the extent of chronic ischemic lesion burden. Neuroradiologists ranked their confidence in performing each task using a 1 to 5 Likert scale. Confidence scores were correlated with noise quality measure, the visual information fidelity criterion, the feature similarity index, root mean square error, and structural similarity (SSIM) via nonlinear regression modeling. Results: Although acceleration alters image quality, neuroradiologists remain able to report pathology. All of the IQMs tested correlated to some degree with diagnostic confidence for assessing chronic ischemic lesion burden, but none correlated with diagnostic confidence in diagnosing the presence/absence of AIS due to consistent radiologist performance regardless of image degradation. Conclusions: Accelerated images were helpful for understanding the ability of IQMs to assess task-specific diagnostic image quality in the context of chronic ischemic lesion burden, although not in the case of AIS diagnosis. These findings suggest that commonly used IQMs, such as the SSIM index, do not necessarily indicate an image's utility when performing certain diagnostic tasks.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.390 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical ImagingSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207