The use of a convolutional neural network to automate radiologic scoring of computed tomography of paranasal sinuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is diagnosed with symptoms and objective endoscopy or computed tomography (CT). The Lund-Mackay score (LMS) is often used to determine the radiologic severity of CRS and make clinical decisions. This proof-of-concept study aimed to develop an automated algorithm combining a convolutional neural network (CNN) for sinus segmentation with post-processing to compute LMS directly from CT scans. RESULTS: Radiology Information System was queried for outpatient paranasal sinus CTs at a tertiary institution. We identified 1,399 CT scans which were manually labelled with LMS of individual sinuses. Seventy-seven CT scans with 13,668 coronal images were segmented manually for individual sinuses. Our model for segmentation achieved a mean Dice score of 0.85 for all sinus regions, except for the osteomeatal complex. For individual Dice scores were 0.95, 0.71, 0.78, 0.93, 0.86 for the maxillary, anterior ethmoid, posterior ethmoid, sphenoid, and frontal sinuses, respectively. LMS was computed automatically by applying adaptive image thresholding and pixel counting to the CNN's segmented regions. A convolutional neural network (CNN) model was trained to segment each sinus region. Overall, the LMS model showed a high degree of accuracy with a score of 0.92, 0.99, 0.99, 0.97, 0.99, 0.86 for the maxillary, anterior ethmoid, posterior ethmoid, sphenoid, and frontal sinuses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of paranasal sinus CT can be automated and potentially standardized with a CNN model to provide accurate Lund-Mackay score.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".