Automatic quality assessment of knee radiographs using knowledge graphs and convolutional neural networks.

Background: X‐ray radiography is a widely used imaging technique worldwide, and its image quality directly affects diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, X‐ray image quality control (QC) is essential. However, subjectively assessing image quality is inefficient and inconsistent, especially when large amounts of image data are being evaluated. Thus, subjective assessment cannot meet current QC needs. Purpose: To meet current QC needs and improve the efficiency of image quality assessment, a complete set of quality assessment criteria must be established and implemented using artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Therefore, we proposed a multi‐criteria AI system for automatically assessing the image quality of knee radiographs. Methods: A knee radiograph QC knowledge graph containing 16 "acquisition technique" labels representing 16 image quality defects and five "clarity" labels representing five grades of clarity were developed. Ten radiographic technologists conducted three rounds of QC based on this graph. The single‐person QC results were denoted as QC1 and QC2, and the multi‐person QC results were denoted as QC3. Each technologist labeled each image only once. The ResNet model structure was then used to simultaneously perform classification (detection of image quality defects) and regression (output of a clarity score) tasks to construct an image QC system. The QC3 results, comprising 4324 anteroposterior and lateral knee radiographs, were used for model training (70% of the images), validation (10%), and testing (20%). The 865 test set data were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the AI model, and an AI QC result, QC4, was automatically generated by the model after training. Finally, using a double‐blind method, the senior QC expert reviewed the final QC results of the test set with reference to the results QC3 and QC4 and used them as a reference standard to evaluate the performance of the model. The precision and mean absolute error (MAE) were used to evaluate the quality of all the labels in relation to the reference standard. Results: For the 16 "acquisition technique" features, QC4 exhibited the highest weighted average precision (98.42% ± 0.81%), followed by QC3 (91.39% ± 1.35%), QC2 (87.84% ± 1.68%), and QC1 (87.35% ± 1.71%). For the image clarity features, the MAEs between QC1, QC2, QC3, and QC4 and the reference standard were 0.508 ± 0.021, 0.475 ± 0.019, 0.237 ± 0.016, and 0.303 ± 0.018, respectively. Conclusions: The experimental results show that our automated quality assessment system performed well in classifying the acquisition technique used for knee radiographs. The image clarity quality evaluation accuracy of the model must be further improved but is generally close to that of radiographic technologists. Intelligent QC methods using knowledge graphs and convolutional neural networks have the potential for clinical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]