Automated image quality control apparatus and methods
An image quality control system is disclosed. The example system includes an artificial intelligence modeler to process image data and metadata from patient data to generate first feature(s) from the image data and to parse the metadata to identify study information. The example system includes a computer vision processor to identify second feature(s) in the image data. The example system includes a results evaluator to compare the first feature(s) and second feature(s) to generate a comparison and to evaluate the comparison, first feature(s), and second feature(s) with respect to the study information to generate an evaluation. The example system includes a quality controller to compare the evaluation to quality criterion(-ia) to produce an approval or rejection of the patient data, the approval to trigger release of the patient data and the rejection to deny release of the patient data.
1. An automated image quality control system comprising:
an artificial intelligence modeler to process image data and metadata from patient data to generate one or more first features from the image data and to parse the metadata to identify study information;
a computer vision processor to identify one or more second features in the image data;
a results evaluator to compare the one or more first features and the one or more second features to generate a comparison and to evaluate the comparison, the one or more first features, and the one or more second features with respect to the study information to generate an evaluation;
a quality controller to compare the evaluation to one or more quality criterion to produce an approval or rejection of the patient data; and
an output generator to output a representation of the approval or the rejection of the patient data, wherein the approval is to trigger release of the patient data and the rejection is to deny release of the patient data.
2. The system of claim 1 , wherein the quality controller is to identify one or more inconsistencies between the evaluation and the one or more quality criterion, and wherein the output generator is to output the one or more inconsistencies.
3. The system of claim 2 , wherein the output generator is to output the representation and the one or more inconsistencies in a report.
4. The system of claim 1 , wherein the results evaluator is to simplify the image to generate a simplified image for review.
5. The system of claim 1 , wherein the results evaluator is to deidentify the patient data to remove a patient identifier from the patient data.
6. The system of claim 1 , wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features include one or more low-level features, medium-level features, or high-level features.
7. The system of claim 6 , wherein the metadata includes an identification of one or more low-level features, medium-level features, or high-level features.
8. At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions which, when executed, cause at least one processor to at least:
generate, using a first artificial intelligence model, one or more first features from image data included in patient data;
parse, using a second artificial intelligence model, metadata included in the patient data to identify study information;
identify, using computer vision, one or more second features in the image data;
compare the one or more first features and the one or more second features to generate a comparison;
evaluate the comparison, the one or more first features, and the one or more second features with respect to the study information to generate an evaluation;
compare the evaluation to one or more quality criterion to produce an approval or rejection of the patient data; and
output a representation of the approval or the rejection of the patient data, wherein the approval is to trigger release of the patient data and the rejection is to deny release of the patient data.
9. The at least one computer-readable storage medium of claim 8 , wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to identify one or more inconsistencies between the evaluation and the one or more quality criterion, and to output the one or more inconsistencies.
10. The at least one computer-readable storage medium of claim 9 , wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to output the representation and the one or more inconsistencies in a report.
11. The at least one computer-readable storage medium of claim 8 , wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to simplify the image to generate a simplified image for review.
12. The at least one computer-readable storage medium of claim 8 , wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one processor to deidentify the patient data to remove a patient identifier from the patient data.
13. The at least one computer-readable storage medium of claim 8 , wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features include one or more low-level features, medium-level features, or high-level features.
14. The at least one computer-readable storage medium of claim 13 , wherein the metadata includes an identification of one or more low-level features, medium-level features, or high-level features.
15. A computer-implemented method of image quality control, the method comprising:
generating, using a first artificial intelligence model, one or more first features from image data included in patient data;
parsing, using a second artificial intelligence model, metadata included in the patient data to identify study information;
identifying, using computer vision, one or more second features in the image data;
comparing, using at least one processor, the one or more first features and the one or more second features to generate a comparison;
evaluating, using the at least one processor, the comparison, the one or more first features, and the one or more second features with respect to the study information to generate an evaluation;
comparing, using the at least one processor, the evaluation to one or more quality criterion to produce an approval or rejection of the patient data; and
outputting, using the at least one processor, a representation of the approval or the rejection of the patient data, wherein the approval is to trigger release of the patient data and the rejection is to deny release of the patient data.
16. The method of claim 15 , further including identifying one or more inconsistencies between the evaluation and the one or more quality criterion, and outputting the one or more inconsistencies.
17. The method of claim 15 , further including simplifying the image to generate a simplified image for review.
18. The method of claim 15 , further including deidentifying the patient data to remove a patient identifier from the patient data.
19. The method of claim 15 , wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features include one or more low-level features, medium-level features, or high-level features.
20. The method of claim 19 , wherein the metadata includes an identification of one or more low-level features, medium-level features, or high-level features.