Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
To find images similar to a specific brain MR image in a database, keyword searches are often inadequate. Content-based image retrieval (CBIR) is preferred, as it enables sorting and finding images based on their similarity to the reference image. Directly applying 3D brain MR images to machine learning models offers the benefit of effectively learning the brain’s structure; however, building the generalized model necessitates a large amount of training data. While models that consider depth direction and utilize continuous 2D slices have demonstrated success in segmentation and classification tasks involving 3D data, concerns remain. Specifically, using general 2D slices may lead to the oversight of pathological features and discontinuities in depth direction information. Furthermore, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there have been no attempts to develop a practical CBIR system that preserves the entire brain’s structural information. In this study, we propose an interpretable CBIR method for brain MR images, named iCBIR-Sli (Interpretable CBIR with 2D Slice Embedding), which, for the first time globally, utilizes a series of 2D slices. iCBIR-Sli addresses the challenges associated with using 2D slices by effectively aggregating slice information, thereby achieving low-dimensional representations with high completeness, usability, robustness, and interpretability—qualities essential for effective CBIR. In retrieval evaluation experiments utilizing five publicly available brain MR datasets (ADNI2/3, OASIS3/4, AIBL) for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitively normal, iCBIR-Sli demonstrated top-1 retrieval performance (macro F1 = 0.859), comparable to existing deep learning models explicitly designed for classification, without the need for an external classifier. Additionally, the method provided high interpretability by clearly identifying the brain regions indicative of the searched-for disease.
Tomoshige et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: