Recently, deep learning methods have shown great potential in various tasks that involve handling large amounts of digital data. In the field of MR imaging research, deep learning methods are also rapidly being applied in a wide range of areas to complement or replace traditional model-based methods. Deep learning methods have shown remarkable improvements in several MR image processing areas such as image reconstruction, image quality improvement, parameter mapping, image contrast conversion, and image segmentation. With the current rapid development of deep learning technologies, the importance of the role of deep learning in MR imaging research appears to be growing. In this article, we introduce the basic concepts of deep learning and review recent studies on various MR image processing applications.
Complement System Proteins ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Learning ; Machine Learning ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Quality Improvement

Background: Worldwide, sepsis is the leading cause of death in hospitals. If mortality rates in patients with sepsis can be predicted early, medical resources can be allocated efficiently. We constructed machine learning (ML) models to predict the mortality of patients with sepsis in a hospital emergency department. Methods: This study prospectively collected nationwide data from an ongoing multicenter cohort of patients with sepsis identified in the emergency department. Patients were enrolled from 19 hospitals between September 2019 and December 2020. For acquired data from 3,657 survivors and 1,455 deaths, six ML models (logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, extreme gradient boosting [XGBoost], light gradient boosting machine, and categorical boosting [CatBoost]) were constructed using fivefold cross-validation to predict mortality. Through these models, 44 clinical variables measured on the day of admission were compared with six sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) components (PaO 2 /FIO 2 [PF], platelets (PLT), bilirubin, cardiovascular, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and creatinine).The confidence interval (CI) was obtained by performing 10,000 repeated measurements via random sampling of the test dataset. All results were explained and interpreted using Shapley’s additive explanations (SHAP). Results: Of the 5,112 participants, CatBoost exhibited the highest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.800 (95% CI, 0.756–0.840) using clinical variables. Using the SOFA components for the same patient, XGBoost exhibited the highest AUC of 0.678 (95% CI, 0.626–0.730). As interpreted by SHAP, albumin, lactate, blood urea nitrogen, and international normalization ratio were determined to significantly affect the results. Additionally, PF and PLTs in the SOFA component significantly influenced the prediction results. Conclusion Newly established ML-based models achieved good prediction of mortality in patients with sepsis. Using several clinical variables acquired at the baseline can provide more accurate results for early predictions than using SOFA components. Additionally, the impact of each variable was identified.