Back

No-code machine learning in radiology: implementation and validation of a platform that allows clinicians to train their own models

Elton, D. C.; Dasegowda, G.; Sato, J. Y.; Frias, E. G.; Mamonov, A. B.; Walters, M.; Ziemelis, M.; Schultz, T. J.; Bizzo, B. C.; Dreyer, K. J.; Kalra, M. K.

2024-04-26 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2024.04.24.24306288 medRxiv
Show abstract

Machine learning models can assist clinicians and researchers in many tasks within radiology such as diagnosis, triage, segmentation/measurement, and quality assurance. To better leverage machine learning we have developed a platform that allows users to label data and train models without requiring any programming knowledge. The technology stack consists of a TypeScript web application running on .NET for user interaction, Python, PyTorch, and MONAI for machine learning, DICOM WADO-RS to retrieve data from clinical systems, and Docker for model management. As a first trial of the system, researchers used it to train a model for clavicle fracture detection as part of an IRB-approved retrospective study. The researchers labeled 4,135 clavicle radiographs from 2,039 patients across 13 sites. The platform automatically split the data into training, validation, and test sets and trained a model until the validation loss plateaued. The system then returned a receiver operating characteristic curve, AUC, F1, and other metrics. The resulting model identifies clavicle fractures with 90% sensitivity, 87% specificity, and 88% accuracy with an AUC of 0.95. This model performance is equivalent to or better than similar models reported in the literature. More recently, our system was used to train a model to identify if ultrasound frames that contain personally identifiable information (PII). After validation, the model was used to help de-identify a large dataset that was to be used for research. This first-of-its-kind system streamlines model development and deployment and opens up an exciting new pathway for the use of AI within healthcare.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.