Diagnostic Performance of a Next-Generation Virtual/Augmented Reality Headset: A Pilot Study of Diverticulitis on CT.

Paul M Murphy, Julie Y An, Luke M Wojdyla, Adam C Searleman, Aman Khurana, Thomas W Loehfelm, Kathryn J Fowler, Christopher A Longhurst
{"title":"Diagnostic Performance of a Next-Generation Virtual/Augmented Reality Headset: A Pilot Study of Diverticulitis on CT.","authors":"Paul M Murphy, Julie Y An, Luke M Wojdyla, Adam C Searleman, Aman Khurana, Thomas W Loehfelm, Kathryn J Fowler, Christopher A Longhurst","doi":"10.1007/s10278-024-01292-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Next-generation virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) headsets may rival the desktop computer systems that are approved for clinical interpretation of radiologic images, but require validation for high-resolution low-luminance diagnoses like diverticulitis. The primary aim of this study is to compare diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT between radiologists using a headset versus a desktop. The secondary aim is to survey participating radiologists about the usage of both devices. This pilot study retrospectively included 110 patients (mean age 64 ± 14 years, 62 women) who had abdomen/pelvis CT scans for which the report mentioned the presence or absence of diverticulitis. Scans were dichotomized and matched by time, for a total of 55 cases with diverticulitis and 55 controls with no diverticulitis. Six radiologists were oriented to the VR/AR headset (Apple Vision Pro) and viewer app (Visage Ease VP) using ten scans. They each scored 100 unknown scans on a 6-level scale for diverticulitis (1 = no diverticulitis, 6 = diverticulitis) on the headset and then on a desktop. Time per case was recorded. Finally, they completed a survey using 5-level scales about the ease of use of the headset and viewer app (1 = difficult, 5 = easy), about their experience with the headset (1 = bad, 5 = good), and about their preference between devices (1 = desktop, 5 = headset). Summary statistics and multi-reader multi-case ROC curves were calculated. The AUC (and 95% confidence interval) for diverticulitis was 0.93 (0.88-0.97) with the headset and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) with the desktop (p = 0.40). The median (and first-third quartiles) of time per case was 57 (41-76) seconds for the headset and 31 (22-64) seconds for the desktop (p < 0.001). Average survey scores ranged from 3.3 to 5 for ease of use, from 3 to 4.7 for experience, and from 2.2 to 3.3 for preference. Diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT was similar between the next-generation VR/AR headset and desktop. Ease of use, experience, and preference varied across different aspects of the devices and among radiologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":516858,"journal":{"name":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01292-7","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

Next-generation virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) headsets may rival the desktop computer systems that are approved for clinical interpretation of radiologic images, but require validation for high-resolution low-luminance diagnoses like diverticulitis. The primary aim of this study is to compare diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT between radiologists using a headset versus a desktop. The secondary aim is to survey participating radiologists about the usage of both devices. This pilot study retrospectively included 110 patients (mean age 64 ± 14 years, 62 women) who had abdomen/pelvis CT scans for which the report mentioned the presence or absence of diverticulitis. Scans were dichotomized and matched by time, for a total of 55 cases with diverticulitis and 55 controls with no diverticulitis. Six radiologists were oriented to the VR/AR headset (Apple Vision Pro) and viewer app (Visage Ease VP) using ten scans. They each scored 100 unknown scans on a 6-level scale for diverticulitis (1 = no diverticulitis, 6 = diverticulitis) on the headset and then on a desktop. Time per case was recorded. Finally, they completed a survey using 5-level scales about the ease of use of the headset and viewer app (1 = difficult, 5 = easy), about their experience with the headset (1 = bad, 5 = good), and about their preference between devices (1 = desktop, 5 = headset). Summary statistics and multi-reader multi-case ROC curves were calculated. The AUC (and 95% confidence interval) for diverticulitis was 0.93 (0.88-0.97) with the headset and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) with the desktop (p = 0.40). The median (and first-third quartiles) of time per case was 57 (41-76) seconds for the headset and 31 (22-64) seconds for the desktop (p < 0.001). Average survey scores ranged from 3.3 to 5 for ease of use, from 3 to 4.7 for experience, and from 2.2 to 3.3 for preference. Diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT was similar between the next-generation VR/AR headset and desktop. Ease of use, experience, and preference varied across different aspects of the devices and among radiologists.

下一代虚拟/增强现实耳机的诊断性能:CT 诊断憩室炎的试点研究。
下一代虚拟/增强现实(VR/AR)头显可与已获准用于临床解读放射图像的台式计算机系统相媲美,但对于像憩室炎这样的高分辨率低照度诊断还需要验证。本研究的主要目的是比较放射科医生使用头显和台式机在 CT 上检测憩室炎的诊断性能。次要目的是调查参与研究的放射科医生对这两种设备的使用情况。这项试点研究回顾性地纳入了 110 名接受过腹部/骨盆 CT 扫描的患者(平均年龄为 64 ± 14 岁,62 名女性),这些患者的扫描报告中都提到了是否存在憩室炎。扫描结果按时间进行二分和匹配,共有 55 例患有憩室炎,55 例对照组未患有憩室炎。六名放射科医生使用 VR/AR 头戴式设备(Apple Vision Pro)和查看器应用程序(Visage Ease VP)进行了十次扫描。他们分别在头显和台式机上对 100 个未知扫描进行憩室炎 6 级评分(1 = 无憩室炎,6 = 有憩室炎)。每个病例的时间都被记录下来。最后,他们就耳麦和阅读器应用的易用性(1 = 难,5 = 易)、使用耳麦的体验(1 = 差,5 = 好)以及对不同设备的偏好(1 = 台式机,5 = 耳麦)完成了一项 5 级量表调查。计算了汇总统计数据和多读者多案例 ROC 曲线。憩室炎的 AUC(和 95% 置信区间)为:耳麦 0.93(0.88-0.97),台式机 0.94(0.91-0.98)(p = 0.40)。每个病例所用时间的中位数(和前三个四分位数)为:耳麦 57 (41-76) 秒,台式机 31 (22-64) 秒(p = 0.40)。
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