Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Identification of Mass Effect and Vasogenic Edema on CT of the Head.

Isabella Newbury-Chaet, Sarah F Mercaldo, John K Chin, Ankita Ghatak, Madeleine A Halle, Ashley L MacDonald, Karen Buch, John Conklin, William A Mehan, Stuart Pomerantz, Sandra Rincon, Keith J Dreyer, Bernardo C Bizzo, James M Hillis
{"title":"Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Identification of Mass Effect and Vasogenic Edema on CT of the Head.","authors":"Isabella Newbury-Chaet, Sarah F Mercaldo, John K Chin, Ankita Ghatak, Madeleine A Halle, Ashley L MacDonald, Karen Buch, John Conklin, William A Mehan, Stuart Pomerantz, Sandra Rincon, Keith J Dreyer, Bernardo C Bizzo, James M Hillis","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Mass effect and vasogenic edema are critical findings on CT of the head. This study compared the accuracy of an artificial intelligence model (Annalise Enterprise CTB) with consensus neuroradiologists' interpretations in detecting mass effect and vasogenic edema.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective stand-alone performance assessment was conducted on data sets of noncontrast CT head cases acquired between 2016 and 2022 for each finding. The cases were obtained from patients 18 years of age or older from 5 hospitals in the United States. The positive cases were selected consecutively on the basis of the original clinical reports using natural language processing and manual confirmation. The negative cases were selected by taking the next negative case acquired from the same CT scanner after positive cases. Each case was interpreted independently by up-to-three neuroradiologists to establish consensus interpretations. Each case was then interpreted by the artificial intelligence model for the presence of the relevant finding. The neuroradiologists were provided with the entire CT study. The artificial intelligence model separately received thin (≤1.5 mm) and/or thick (>1.5 and ≤5 mm) axial series.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 2 cohorts included 818 cases for mass effect and 310 cases for vasogenic edema. The artificial intelligence model identified mass effect with a sensitivity of 96.6% (95% CI, 94.9%-98.2%) and a specificity of 89.8% (95% CI, 84.7%-94.2%) for the thin series, and 95.3% (95% CI, 93.5%-96.8%) and 93.1% (95% CI, 89.1%-96.6%) for the thick series. It identified vasogenic edema with a sensitivity of 90.2% (95% CI, 82.0%-96.7%) and a specificity of 93.5% (95% CI, 88.9%-97.2%) for the thin series, and 90.0% (95% CI, 84.0%-96.0%) and 95.5% (95% CI, 92.5%-98.0%) for the thick series. The corresponding areas under the curve were at least 0.980.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The assessed artificial intelligence model accurately identified mass effect and vasogenic edema in this CT data set. It could assist the clinical workflow by prioritizing interpretation of cases with abnormal findings, possibly benefiting patients through earlier identification and subsequent treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11448995/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Mass effect and vasogenic edema are critical findings on CT of the head. This study compared the accuracy of an artificial intelligence model (Annalise Enterprise CTB) with consensus neuroradiologists' interpretations in detecting mass effect and vasogenic edema.

Materials and methods: A retrospective stand-alone performance assessment was conducted on data sets of noncontrast CT head cases acquired between 2016 and 2022 for each finding. The cases were obtained from patients 18 years of age or older from 5 hospitals in the United States. The positive cases were selected consecutively on the basis of the original clinical reports using natural language processing and manual confirmation. The negative cases were selected by taking the next negative case acquired from the same CT scanner after positive cases. Each case was interpreted independently by up-to-three neuroradiologists to establish consensus interpretations. Each case was then interpreted by the artificial intelligence model for the presence of the relevant finding. The neuroradiologists were provided with the entire CT study. The artificial intelligence model separately received thin (≤1.5 mm) and/or thick (>1.5 and ≤5 mm) axial series.

Results: The 2 cohorts included 818 cases for mass effect and 310 cases for vasogenic edema. The artificial intelligence model identified mass effect with a sensitivity of 96.6% (95% CI, 94.9%-98.2%) and a specificity of 89.8% (95% CI, 84.7%-94.2%) for the thin series, and 95.3% (95% CI, 93.5%-96.8%) and 93.1% (95% CI, 89.1%-96.6%) for the thick series. It identified vasogenic edema with a sensitivity of 90.2% (95% CI, 82.0%-96.7%) and a specificity of 93.5% (95% CI, 88.9%-97.2%) for the thin series, and 90.0% (95% CI, 84.0%-96.0%) and 95.5% (95% CI, 92.5%-98.0%) for the thick series. The corresponding areas under the curve were at least 0.980.

Conclusions: The assessed artificial intelligence model accurately identified mass effect and vasogenic edema in this CT data set. It could assist the clinical workflow by prioritizing interpretation of cases with abnormal findings, possibly benefiting patients through earlier identification and subsequent treatment.

评估用于识别头部计算机断层扫描中肿块效应和血管源性水肿的人工智能模型。
背景和目的:肿块效应和血管源性水肿是头部 CT 的重要发现。本研究比较了人工智能模型(Annalise Enterprise CTB)与神经放射科医生共识解释在检测肿块效应和血管源性水肿方面的准确性:对2016年至2022年期间获得的非对比CT头部病例数据集进行了回顾性独立性能评估,以确定每项发现。病例来自美国五家医院的 18 岁或以上患者。通过自然语言处理和人工确认,根据原始临床报告连续筛选出阳性病例。阴性病例是在阳性病例之后从同一台 CT 扫描仪上获取的下一个阴性病例中挑选出来的。每个病例都由最多三位神经放射学专家进行独立解读,以达成共识。然后由人工智能模型对每个病例进行解读,以确定是否存在相关发现。神经放射学专家会收到整个 CT 研究报告。人工智能模型分别接收薄层(≤1.5 毫米)和/或厚层(>1.5 毫米和≤5 毫米)轴向系列:结果:两个队列包括 818 例肿块效应病例和 310 例血管源性水肿病例。AI 模型识别肿块效应的灵敏度为 96.6%(95% CI,94.9-98.2),特异性为 89.8%(95% CI,84.7-94.2);识别肿块效应的灵敏度为 95.3%(95% CI,93.5-96.8),特异性为 93.1%(95% CI,89.1-96.6)。在薄层系列中,血管源性水肿的敏感性为 90.2%(95% CI,82.0-96.7),特异性为 93.5%(95% CI,88.9-97.2);在厚层系列中,血管源性水肿的敏感性为 90.0%(95% CI,84.0-96.0),特异性为 95.5%(95% CI,92.5-98.0)。相应的曲线下面积至少为 0.980:评估的人工智能模型能准确识别该 CT 数据集中的肿块效应和血管源性水肿。结论:所评估的人工智能模型能准确识别该 CT 数据集中的肿块效应和血管源性水肿,通过优先判读异常病例来协助临床工作流程,从而通过早期识别和后续治疗使患者受益:缩写:AI = 人工智能;AUC = 曲线下面积;CADt = 计算机辅助分诊设备;FDA = 食品药品管理局;NPV = 阴性预测值;PPV = 阳性预测值;SD = 标准偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信