A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Convolutional Neural Networks in Spinal Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review. | LitMetric

Convolutional Neural Networks in Spinal Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review.

World Neurosurg

Department of Orthopedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. Electronic address:

Published: October 2022

Objective: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are being increasingly used in the medical field, especially for image recognition in high-resolution, large-volume data sets. The study represents the current state of research on the application of CNNs in image segmentation and pathology detection in spine magnetic resonance imaging.

Methods: For this systematic literature review, the authors performed a systematic initial search of the PubMed/Medline and Web of Science (Core collection) databases for eligible investigations. The authors limited the search to observational studies. Outcome parameters were analyzed according to the inclusion criteria and assigned to 3 groups: 1) segmentation of anatomical structures, 2) segmentation and evaluation of pathologic structures, and 3) specific implementation of CNNs.

Results: Twenty-four retrospectively designed articles met the inclusion criteria. Publication dates ranged from 2017 to 2021. In total, 14,065 patients with 113,110 analyzed images were included. Most authors trained their network with a training-to-testing ratio of 80/20, while all but 2 articles used 5- to 10-fold cross-validation. Nine articles compared their performance results with other neural networks and algorithms, and all 24 articles described outcomes as positive.

Conclusions: State-of-the-art CNNs can detect and segment-specific anatomical landmarks and pathologies across a wide range, comparable to the skills of radiologists and experienced clinicians. With rapidly evolving network architectures and growing medical image databases, the future is likely to show growth in the development and refinement of these capable networks. However, the aid of automated segmentation and classification by neural networks cannot and should not be expected to replace clinical experts.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.07.041DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

neural networks
16
convolutional neural
8
magnetic resonance
8
inclusion criteria
8
networks
5
networks spinal
4
spinal magnetic
4
resonance imaging
4
imaging systematic
4
systematic review
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!