Dataset Information

Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Highly accurate detection of intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) on head computed tomography (HCT) scans can prove challenging at high-volume centers. This study aimed to determine the number of additional ICHs detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm and to evaluate reasons for erroneous results at a level I trauma center with teleradiology services.

Methods

In a retrospective multi-center cohort study, consecutive emergency non-contrast HCT scans were analyzed by a commercially available ICH detection software (AIDOC, Tel Aviv, Israel). Discrepancies between AI analysis and initial radiology report (RR) were reviewed by a blinded neuroradiologist to determine the number of additional ICHs detected and evaluate reasons leading to errors.

Results

4946 HCT (05/2020-09/2020) from 18 hospitals were included in the analysis. 205 reports (4.1%) were classified as hemorrhages by both radiology report and AI. Out of a total of 162 (3.3%) discrepant reports, 62 were confirmed as hemorrhages by the reference neuroradiologist. 33 ICHs were identified exclusively via RRs. The AI algorithm detected an additional 29 instances of ICH, missed 12.4% of ICH and overcalled 1.9%; RRs missed 10.9% of ICHs and overcalled 0.2%. Many of the ICHs missed by the AI algorithm were located in the subarachnoid space (42.4%) and under the calvaria (48.5%). 85% of ICHs missed by RRs occurred outside of regular working-hours. Calcifications (39.3%), beam-hardening artifacts (18%), tumors (15.7%), and blood vessels (7.9%) were the most common reasons for AI overcalls. ICH size, image quality, and primary examiner experience were not found to be significantly associated with likelihood of incorrect AI results.

Conclusion

Complementing human expertise with AI resulted in a 12.2% increase in ICH detection. The AI algorithm overcalled 1.9% HCT.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00023593).

SUBMITTER: Kundisch A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629230 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:(1) Background: Acute pericarditis is often confused with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) among patients presenting with acute chest pain in the emergency department (ED). Since a deep learning model (DLM) has been validated to accurately identify STEMI cases via 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), this study aimed to develop another DLM for the detection of acute pericarditis in the ED. (2) Methods: This study included 128 ECGs from patients with acute pericarditis and 66,633 ECGs from patients visiting the ED between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The ECGs were randomly allocated based on patients to the training, tuning, and validation sets, at a 3:1:1 ratio. We used raw ECG signals to train a pericarditis-DLM and used traditional ECG features to train a machine learning model. A human-machine competition was conducted using a subset of the validation set, and the performance of the Philips automatic algorithm was also compared. STEMI cases in the validation set were extracted to analyze the DLM ability of differential diagnosis between acute pericarditis and STEMI using ECG. We also followed the hospitalization events in non-pericarditis cases to explore the meaning of false-positive predictions. (3) Results: The pericarditis-DLM exceeded the performance of all participating human experts and algorithms based on traditional ECG features in the human-machine competition. In the validation set, the pericarditis-DLM could detect acute pericarditis with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.954, a sensitivity of 78.9%, and a specificity of 97.7%. However, our pericarditis-DLM also misinterpreted 10.2% of STEMI ECGs as pericarditis cases. Therefore, we generated an integrating strategy combining pericarditis-DLM and a previously developed STEMI-DLM, which provided a sensitivity of 73.7% and specificity of 99.4%, to identify acute pericarditis in patients with chest pains. Compared to the true-negative cases, patients with false-positive results using this strategy were associated with higher risk of hospitalization within 3 days due to cardiac disorders (hazard ratio (HR): 8.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.99 to 16.39). (4) Conclusions: The AI-enhanced algorithm may be a powerful tool to assist clinicians in the early detection of acute pericarditis and differentiate it from STEMI using 12-lead ECGs.

Project description:ImportanceMore than 60 million people in India have diabetes and are at risk for diabetic retinopathy (DR), a vision-threatening disease. Automated interpretation of retinal fundus photographs can help support and scale a robust screening program to detect DR.ObjectiveTo prospectively validate the performance of an automated DR system across 2 sites in India.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective observational study was conducted at 2 eye care centers in India (Aravind Eye Hospital and Sankara Nethralaya) and included 3049 patients with diabetes. Data collection and patient enrollment took place between April 2016 and July 2016 at Aravind and May 2016 and April 2017 at Sankara Nethralaya. The model was trained and fixed in March 2016.InterventionsAutomated DR grading system compared with manual grading by 1 trained grader and 1 retina specialist from each site. Adjudication by a panel of 3 retinal specialists served as the reference standard in the cases of disagreement.Main outcomes and measuresSensitivity and specificity for moderate or worse DR or referable diabetic macula edema.ResultsOf 3049 patients, 1091 (35.8%) were women and the mean (SD) age for patients at Aravind and Sankara Nethralaya was 56.6 (9.0) years and 56.0 (10.0) years, respectively. For moderate or worse DR, the sensitivity and specificity for manual grading by individual nonadjudicator graders ranged from 73.4% to 89.8% and from 83.5% to 98.7%, respectively. The automated DR system's performance was equal to or exceeded manual grading, with an 88.9% sensitivity (95% CI, 85.8-91.5), 92.2% specificity (95% CI, 90.3-93.8), and an area under the curve of 0.963 on the data set from Aravind Eye Hospital and 92.1% sensitivity (95% CI, 90.1-93.8), 95.2% specificity (95% CI, 94.2-96.1), and an area under the curve of 0.980 on the data set from Sankara Nethralaya.Conclusions and relevanceThis study shows that the automated DR system generalizes to this population of Indian patients in a prospective setting and demonstrates the feasibility of using an automated DR grading system to expand screening programs.