Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of computer aided electrocardiogram analysis in dogs.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Evaluation of a computerised electrocardiogram algorithm compared to the interpretation of a team of board-certified veterinary cardiologists.

Materials and methods

This was a cross-sectional retrospective cohort study. A total of 399 electronic canine electrocardiogram recordings screened from 1391 electrocardiograms were enrolled in the study. A panel of seven cardiologists, masked to patient information, evaluated electrocardiograms for the following: P-wave amplitude and duration; PR-interval; R-wave amplitude; QRS duration; heart rate; mean electrical axis; and final overall diagnosis for the detection of arrhythmia and any abnormal electrocardiogram anomaly.

Results

The sensitivity of the electrocardiogram algorithm for detecting arrhythmias was 99.7% (95% confidence intervals, CI: 98.5 to 99.9) and the specificity was 99.5% (95% CI: 98.0 to 99.9) compared to the consensus result created by panel of cardiologists. The sensitivity of the algorithm for the detection of any electrocardiogram anomaly, including abnormal measurements, was 71.3% (95% CI: 65.5 to 76.7) and the specificity was 35.1% (95% CI: 27.0 to 43.8) compared to the panel of cardiologists.

Clinical significance

The electrocardiogram algorithm was shown to have high sensitivity for the detection of arrhythmias, but not all electrocardiogram anomalies. The results support the use of this algorithm as a tool to aid in the triage of the electrocardiogram workflow.

SUBMITTER: Estrada AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7898890 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States.To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice.We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening.Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD.Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97).Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.

Project description:Importance:The recent advances in the field of machine learning have raised expectations that computer-aided diagnosis will become the standard for the diagnosis of melanoma. Objective:To critically review the current literature and compare the diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis with that of human experts. Data Sources:The MEDLINE, arXiv, and PubMed Central databases were searched to identify eligible studies published between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018. Study Selection:Studies that reported on the accuracy of automated systems for melanoma were selected. Search terms included melanoma, diagnosis, detection, computer aided, and artificial intelligence. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Evaluation of the risk of bias was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and quality assessment was based on predefined criteria. Data were analyzed from February 1 to March 10, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were the primary outcomes. Results:The literature search yielded 1694 potentially eligible studies, of which 132 were included and 70 offered sufficient information for a quantitative analysis. Most studies came from the field of computer science. Prospective clinical studies were rare. Combining the results for automated systems gave a melanoma sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88). Sensitivity was lower in studies that used independent test sets than in those that did not (0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.69 vs 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.86; P?<?.001); however, the specificity was similar (0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91 vs 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88; P?=?.67). In comparison with dermatologists' diagnosis, computer-aided diagnosis showed similar sensitivities and a 10 percentage points lower specificity, but the difference was not statistically significant. Studies were heterogeneous and substantial risk of bias was found in all but 4 of the 70 studies included in the quantitative analysis. Conclusions and Relevance:Although the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis for melanoma detection is comparable to that of experts, the real-world applicability of these systems is unknown and potentially limited owing to overfitting and the risk of bias of the studies at hand.

Project description:BackgroundColonoscopy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) by allowing detection and resection of neoplastic polyps. Evidence shows that many small polyps are missed on a single colonoscopy. There has been a successful adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to tackle the issues around missed polyps and as tools to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based technologies in assessing colorectal polyps.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken using the databases of Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Studies reporting the use of computer-aided diagnosis for polyp detection or characterization during colonoscopy were included. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated and pooled through DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling.ResultsA total of 48 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed a significant increase in pooled polyp detection rate in patients with the use of AI for polyp detection during colonoscopy compared with patients who had standard colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.56-1.96; P<.001). When comparing patients undergoing colonoscopy with the use of AI to those without, there was also a significant increase in ADR (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.32-1.77; P<.001).ConclusionsWith the aid of machine learning, there is potential to improve ADR and, consequently, reduce the incidence of CRC. The current generation of AI-based systems demonstrate impressive accuracy for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps. However, this is an evolving field and before its adoption into a clinical setting, AI systems must prove worthy to patients and clinicians.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020169786; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020169786.

Project description:In general, chest radiographs (CXR) have high sensitivity and moderate specificity for active pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) screening when interpreted by human readers. However, they are challenging to scale due to hardware costs and the dearth of professionals available to interpret CXR in low-resource, high PTB burden settings. Recently, several computer-aided detection (CAD) programs have been developed to facilitate automated CXR interpretation. We conducted a retrospective case-control study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a CAD software (qXR, Qure.ai, Mumbai, India) using microbiologically-confirmed PTB as the reference standard. To assess overall accuracy of qXR, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the area under the curve (AUC), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Kappa coefficients, and associated 95% CI, were used to investigate inter-rater reliability of the radiologists for detection of specific chest abnormalities. In total, 317 cases and 612 controls were included in the analysis. The AUC for qXR for the detection of microbiologically-confirmed PTB was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.84). Using the threshold that maximized sensitivity and specificity of qXR simultaneously, the software achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 71% (95% CI: 66%, 76%) and 80% (95% CI: 77%, 83%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of radiologists for the detection of microbiologically-confirmed PTB was 56% (95% CI: 50%, 62%) and 80% (95% CI: 77%, 83%), respectively. For detection of key PTB-related abnormalities 'pleural effusion' and 'cavity', qXR achieved an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.96) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.87), respectively. For the other abnormalities, the AUC ranged from 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.80) to 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). The controls had a high prevalence of other lung diseases which can cause radiological manifestations similar to PTB (e.g., 26% had pneumonia, 15% had lung malignancy, etc.). In a tertiary hospital in India, qXR demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for the detection of PTB. There is likely a larger role for CAD software as a triage test for PTB at the primary care level in settings where access to radiologists in limited. Larger prospective studies that can better assess heterogeneity in important subgroups are needed.

Project description:BackgroundCollectively, an estimated 5% of the population have a genetic disease. Many of them feature characteristics that can be detected by facial phenotyping. Face2Gene CLINIC is an online app for facial phenotyping of patients with genetic syndromes. DeepGestalt, the neural network driving Face2Gene, automatically prioritizes syndrome suggestions based on ordinary patient photographs, potentially improving the diagnostic process. Hitherto, studies on DeepGestalt's quality highlighted its sensitivity in syndromic patients. However, determining the accuracy of a diagnostic methodology also requires testing of negative controls.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate DeepGestalt's accuracy with photos of individuals with and without a genetic syndrome. Moreover, we aimed to propose a machine learning-based framework for the automated differentiation of DeepGestalt's output on such images.MethodsFrontal facial images of individuals with a diagnosis of a genetic syndrome (established clinically or molecularly) from a convenience sample were reanalyzed. Each photo was matched by age, sex, and ethnicity to a picture featuring an individual without a genetic syndrome. Absence of a facial gestalt suggestive of a genetic syndrome was determined by physicians working in medical genetics. Photos were selected from online reports or were taken by us for the purpose of this study. Facial phenotype was analyzed by DeepGestalt version 19.1.7, accessed via Face2Gene CLINIC. Furthermore, we designed linear support vector machines (SVMs) using Python 3.7 to automatically differentiate between the 2 classes of photographs based on DeepGestalt's result lists.ResultsWe included photos of 323 patients diagnosed with 17 different genetic syndromes and matched those with an equal number of facial images without a genetic syndrome, analyzing a total of 646 pictures. We confirm DeepGestalt's high sensitivity (top 10 sensitivity: 295/323, 91%). DeepGestalt's syndrome suggestions in individuals without a craniofacially dysmorphic syndrome followed a nonrandom distribution. A total of 17 syndromes appeared in the top 30 suggestions of more than 50% of nondysmorphic images. DeepGestalt's top scores differed between the syndromic and control images (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] curve 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.76; P<.001). A linear SVM running on DeepGestalt's result vectors showed stronger differences (AUROC 0.89, 95% CI 0.87-0.92; P<.001).ConclusionsDeepGestalt fairly separates images of individuals with and without a genetic syndrome. This separation can be significantly improved by SVMs running on top of DeepGestalt, thus supporting the diagnostic process of patients with a genetic syndrome. Our findings facilitate the critical interpretation of DeepGestalt's results and may help enhance it and similar computer-aided facial phenotyping tools.

Project description:BackgroundChest radiography to diagnose and screen for pulmonary tuberculosis has limitations, especially due to inter-reader variability. Automating the interpretation has the potential to overcome this drawback and to deliver objective and reproducible results. The CAD4TB software is a computer-aided detection system that has shown promising preliminary findings. Evaluation studies in different settings are needed to assess diagnostic accuracy and practicability of use.MethodsCAD4TB was evaluated on chest radiographs of patients with symptoms suggestive of pulmonary tuberculosis enrolled in two cohort studies in Tanzania. All patients were characterized by sputum smear microscopy and culture including subsequent antigen or molecular confirmation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) to determine the reference standard. Chest radiographs were read by the software and two human readers, one expert reader and one clinical officer. The sensitivity and specificity of CAD4TB was depicted using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the area under the curve calculated and the performance of the software compared to the results of human readers.ResultsOf 861 study participants, 194 (23%) were culture-positive for M.tb. The area under the ROC curve of CAD4TB for the detection of culture-positive pulmonary tuberculosis was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88). CAD4TB was significantly more accurate for the discrimination of smear-positive cases against non TB patients than for smear-negative cases (p-value<0.01). It differentiated better between TB cases and non TB patients among HIV-negative compared to HIV-positive individuals (p<0.01). CAD4TB significantly outperformed the clinical officer, but did not reach the accuracy of the expert reader (p?=?0.02), for a tuberculosis specific reading threshold.ConclusionCAD4TB accurately distinguished between the chest radiographs of culture-positive TB cases and controls. Further studies on cost-effectiveness, operational and ethical aspects should determine its place in diagnostic and screening algorithms.