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:Study designRetrospective diagnostic study.ObjectiveTo automatically detect osteolytic bone metastasis lesions in the thoracolumbar region using conventional computed tomography (CT) scans, we developed a new deep learning (DL)-based computer-aided detection model.Summary of background dataRadiographic detection of bone metastasis is often difficult, even for orthopedic surgeons and diagnostic radiologists, with a consequent risk for pathologic fracture or spinal cord injury. If we can improve detection rates, we will be able to prevent the deterioration of patients' quality of life at the end stage of cancer.Materials and methodsThis study included CT scans acquired at Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) Hospital between 2016 and 2022. A total of 263 positive CT scans that included at least one osteolytic bone metastasis lesion in the thoracolumbar spine and 172 negative CT scans without bone metastasis were collected for the datasets to train and validate the DL algorithm. As a test data set, 20 positive and 20 negative CT scans were separately collected from the training and validation datasets. To evaluate the performance of the established artificial intelligence (AI) model, sensitivity, precision, F1-score, and specificity were calculated. The clinical utility of our AI model was also evaluated through observer studies involving six orthopaedic surgeons and six radiologists.ResultsOur AI model showed a sensitivity, precision, and F1-score of 0.78, 0.68, and 0.72 (per slice) and 0.75, 0.36, and 0.48 (per lesion), respectively. The observer studies revealed that our AI model had comparable sensitivity to orthopaedic or radiology experts and improved the sensitivity and F1-score of residents.ConclusionWe developed a novel DL-based AI model for detecting osteolytic bone metastases in the thoracolumbar spine. Although further improvement in accuracy is needed, the current AI model may be applied to current clinical practice.Level of evidenceLevel III.

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:Background and purpose: Anatomical labeling of the cerebral vasculature is a crucial topic in determining the morphological nature and characterizing the vital variations of vessels, yet precise labeling of the intracranial arteries is time-consuming and challenging, given anatomical structural variability and surging imaging data. We present a U-Net-based deep learning (DL) model to automatically label detailed anatomical segments in computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the first time. The trained DL algorithm was further tested on a clinically relevant set for the localization of intracranial aneurysms (IAs). Methods: 457 examinations with varying degrees of arterial stenosis were used to train, validate, and test the model, aiming to automatically label 42 segments of the intracranial arteries [e.g., 7 segments of the internal carotid artery (ICA)]. Evaluation metrics included Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD), and Hausdorff distance (HD). Additionally, 96 examinations containing at least one IA were enrolled to assess the model's potential in enhancing clinicians' precision in IA localization. A total of 5 clinicians with different experience levels participated as readers in the clinical experiment and identified the precise location of IA without and with algorithm assistance, where there was a washout period of 14 days between two interpretations. The diagnostic accuracy, time, and mean interrater agreement (Fleiss' Kappa) were calculated to assess the differences in clinical performance of clinicians. Results: The proposed model exhibited notable labeling performance on 42 segments that included 7 anatomical segments of ICA, with the mean DSC of 0.88, MSD of 0.82 mm and HD of 6.59 mm. Furthermore, the model demonstrated superior labeling performance in healthy subjects compared to patients with stenosis (DSC: 0.91 vs. 0.89, p < 0.05; HD: 4.75 vs. 6.19, p < 0.05). Concurrently, clinicians with model predictions achieved significant improvements when interpreting the precise location of IA. The clinicians' mean accuracy increased by 0.04 (p = 0.003), mean time to diagnosis reduced by 9.76 s (p < 0.001), and mean interrater agreement (Fleiss' Kappa) increased by 0.07 (p = 0.029). Conclusion: Our model stands proficient for labeling intracranial arteries using the largest CTA dataset. Crucially, it demonstrates clinical utility, helping prioritize the patients with high risks and ease clinical workload.