Artificial intelligence abstracts from the European Congress of Radiology: analysis of topics and compliance with the STARD for abstracts checklist.

Clicks: 395
ID: 105044
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #7 of 47 articles by views in insights into imaging

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
To analyze all artificial intelligence abstracts presented at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2019 with regard to their topics and their adherence to the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) checklist.A total of 184 abstracts were analyzed with regard to adherence to the STARD criteria for abstracts as well as the reported modality, body region, pathology, and use cases.Major topics of artificial intelligence abstracts were classification tasks in the abdomen, chest, and brain with CT being the most commonly used modality. Out of the 10 STARD for abstract criteria analyzed in the present study, on average, 5.32 (SD = 1.38) were reported by the 184 abstracts. Specifically, the highest adherence with STARD for abstracts was found for general interpretation of results of abstracts (100.0%, 184 of 184), clear study objectives (99.5%, 183 of 184), and estimates of diagnostic accuracy (96.2%, 177 of 184). The lowest STARD adherence was found for eligibility criteria for participants (9.2%, 17 of 184), type of study series (13.6%, 25 of 184), and implications for practice (20.7%, 44 of 184). There was no significant difference in the number of reported STARD criteria between abstracts accepted for oral presentation (M = 5.35, SD = 1.31) and abstracts accepted for the electronic poster session (M = 5.39, SD = 1.45) (p = .86).The adherence with STARD for abstract was low, indicating that providing authors with the related checklist may increase the quality of abstracts.
Reference Key
dratsch2020artificialinsights Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Dratsch, Thomas;Caldeira, Liliana;Maintz, David;Dos Santos, Daniel Pinto;
Journal insights into imaging
Year 2020
DOI
10.1186/s13244-020-00866-7
URL
Keywords
artificial intelligence Machine learning radiology congresses as topic data reporting

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.