Georg Langs1, Ulrike Attenberger2, Roxane Licandro3,4, Johannes Hofmanninger3, Matthias Perkonigg3, Mario Zusag3, Sebastian Röhrich3, Daniel Sobotka3, Helmut Prosch3. 1. Universitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich. georg.langs@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Universitätsklinik für Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland. 3. Universitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Computational Imaging Research Lab, Medizinische Universität Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich. 4. Computer Vision Lab, Institute of Visual Computing and Human-Centered Technology, Technische Universität Wien, Favoritenstrasse 9-11, Wien, Österreich.
Abstract
METHODICAL ISSUE: Machine learning (ML) algorithms have an increasingly relevant role in radiology tackling tasks such as the automatic detection and segmentation of diagnosis-relevant markers, the quantification of progression and response, and their prediction in individual patients. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: ML algorithms are relevant for all image acquisition techniques from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to ultrasound. However, different modalities result in different challenges with respect to standardization and variability. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: ML algorithms are increasingly able to analyze longitudinal data for the training of prediction models. This is relevant since it enables the use of comprehensive information for predicting individual progression and response, and the associated support of treatment decisions by ML models. PERFORMANCE: The quality of detection and segmentation algorithms of lesions has reached an acceptable level in several areas. The accuracy of prediction models is still increasing, but is dependent on the availability of representative training data. ACHIEVEMENTS: The development of ML algorithms in radiology is progressing although many solutions are still at a validation stage. It is accompanied by a parallel and increasingly interlinked development of basic methods and techniques which will gradually be put into practice in radiology. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Two factors will impact the relevance of ML in radiological practice: the thorough validation of algorithms and solutions, and the creation of representative diverse data for the training and validation in a realistic context.
METHODICAL ISSUE: Machine learning (ML) algorithms have an increasingly relevant role in radiology tackling tasks such as the automatic detection and segmentation of diagnosis-relevant markers, the quantification of progression and response, and their prediction in individual patients. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: ML algorithms are relevant for all image acquisition techniques from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to ultrasound. However, different modalities result in different challenges with respect to standardization and variability. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: ML algorithms are increasingly able to analyze longitudinal data for the training of prediction models. This is relevant since it enables the use of comprehensive information for predicting individual progression and response, and the associated support of treatment decisions by ML models. PERFORMANCE: The quality of detection and segmentation algorithms of lesions has reached an acceptable level in several areas. The accuracy of prediction models is still increasing, but is dependent on the availability of representative training data. ACHIEVEMENTS: The development of ML algorithms in radiology is progressing although many solutions are still at a validation stage. It is accompanied by a parallel and increasingly interlinked development of basic methods and techniques which will gradually be put into practice in radiology. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Two factors will impact the relevance of ML in radiological practice: the thorough validation of algorithms and solutions, and the creation of representative diverse data for the training and validation in a realistic context.
Authors: Michael C Donohue; Hélène Jacqmin-Gadda; Mélanie Le Goff; Ronald G Thomas; Rema Raman; Anthony C Gamst; Laurel A Beckett; Clifford R Jack; Michael W Weiner; Jean-François Dartigues; Paul S Aisen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Guha Balakrishnan; Amy Zhao; Mert R Sabuncu; John Guttag; Adrian V Dalca Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Marco Lorenzi; Maurizio Filippone; Giovanni B Frisoni; Daniel C Alexander; Sebastien Ourselin Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Răzvan V Marinescu; Arman Eshaghi; Marco Lorenzi; Alexandra L Young; Neil P Oxtoby; Sara Garbarino; Sebastian J Crutch; Daniel C Alexander Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: James C Ross; Peter J Castaldi; Michael H Cho; Craig P Hersh; Farbod N Rahaghi; Gonzalo V Sánchez-Ferrero; Margaret M Parker; Augusto A Litonjua; David Sparrow; Jennifer G Dy; Edwin K Silverman; George R Washko; Raúl San José Estépar Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 30.528
Authors: Hugo J W L Aerts; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Chintan Parmar; Patrick Grossmann; Sara Carvalho; Sara Cavalho; Johan Bussink; René Monshouwer; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Derek Rietveld; Frank Hoebers; Michelle M Rietbergen; C René Leemans; Andre Dekker; John Quackenbush; Robert J Gillies; Philippe Lambin Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 14.919