We have located links that may give you full text access.
A deep learning-based algorithm improves radiology residents' diagnoses of acute pulmonary embolism on CT pulmonary angiograms.
European Journal of Radiology 2024 January 18
PURPOSE: To compare radiology residents' diagnostic performances to detect pulmonary emboli (PEs) on CT pulmonary angiographies (CTPAs) with deep-learning (DL)-based algorithm support and without.
METHODS: Fully anonymized CTPAs (n = 207) of patients suspected of having acute PE served as input for PE detection using a previously trained and validated DL-based algorithm. Three residents in their first three years of training, blinded to the index report and clinical history, read the CTPAs first without, and 2 months later with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) output, to diagnose PE as present, absent or indeterminate. We evaluated concordances and discordances with the consensus-reading results of two experts in chest imaging.
RESULTS: Because the AI algorithm failed to analyze 11 CTPAs, 196 CTPAs were analyzed; 31 (15.8 %) were PE-positive. Good-classification performance was higher for residents with AI-algorithm support than without (AUROCs: 0.958 [95 % CI: 0.921-0.979] vs. 0.894 [95 % CI: 0.850-0.931], p < 0.001, respectively). The main finding was the increased sensitivity of residents' diagnoses using the AI algorithm (92.5 % vs. 81.7 %, respectively). Concordance between residents (kappa: 0.77 [95 % CI: 0.76-0.78]; p < 0.001) improved with AI-algorithm use (kappa: 0.88 [95 % CI: 0.87-0.89]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The AI algorithm we used improved between-resident agreements to interpret CTPAs for suspected PE and, hence, their diagnostic performances.
METHODS: Fully anonymized CTPAs (n = 207) of patients suspected of having acute PE served as input for PE detection using a previously trained and validated DL-based algorithm. Three residents in their first three years of training, blinded to the index report and clinical history, read the CTPAs first without, and 2 months later with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) output, to diagnose PE as present, absent or indeterminate. We evaluated concordances and discordances with the consensus-reading results of two experts in chest imaging.
RESULTS: Because the AI algorithm failed to analyze 11 CTPAs, 196 CTPAs were analyzed; 31 (15.8 %) were PE-positive. Good-classification performance was higher for residents with AI-algorithm support than without (AUROCs: 0.958 [95 % CI: 0.921-0.979] vs. 0.894 [95 % CI: 0.850-0.931], p < 0.001, respectively). The main finding was the increased sensitivity of residents' diagnoses using the AI algorithm (92.5 % vs. 81.7 %, respectively). Concordance between residents (kappa: 0.77 [95 % CI: 0.76-0.78]; p < 0.001) improved with AI-algorithm use (kappa: 0.88 [95 % CI: 0.87-0.89]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The AI algorithm we used improved between-resident agreements to interpret CTPAs for suspected PE and, hence, their diagnostic performances.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app