Development and Validation of a Sham-AI Model for Intracranial Aneurysm Detection at CT Angiography.

IF 8.1 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Zhao Shi, Bin Hu, Mengjie Lu, Manting Zhang, Haiting Yang, Bo He, Jiyao Ma, Chunfeng Hu, Li Lu, Sheng Li, Shiyu Ren, Yonggao Zhang, Jun Li, Mayidili Nijiati, Jiake Dong, Hao Wang, Zhen Zhou, Fandong Zhang, Chengwei Pan, Yizhou Yu, Zijian Chen, Chang Sheng Zhou, Yongyue Wei, Junlin Zhou, Long Jiang Zhang
{"title":"Development and Validation of a Sham-AI Model for Intracranial Aneurysm Detection at CT Angiography.","authors":"Zhao Shi, Bin Hu, Mengjie Lu, Manting Zhang, Haiting Yang, Bo He, Jiyao Ma, Chunfeng Hu, Li Lu, Sheng Li, Shiyu Ren, Yonggao Zhang, Jun Li, Mayidili Nijiati, Jiake Dong, Hao Wang, Zhen Zhou, Fandong Zhang, Chengwei Pan, Yizhou Yu, Zijian Chen, Chang Sheng Zhou, Yongyue Wei, Junlin Zhou, Long Jiang Zhang","doi":"10.1148/ryai.240140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To evaluate a sham-artificial intelligence (AI) model acting as a placebo control for a standard-AI model for diagnosis of intracranial aneurysm. Materials and Methods This retrospective crossover, blinded, multireader, multicase study was conducted from November 2022 to March 2023. A sham-AI model with near-zero sensitivity and similar specificity to a standard AI model was developed using 16 422 CT angiography examinations. Digital subtraction angiography-verified CT angiographic examinations from four hospitals were collected, half of which were processed by standard AI and the others by sham AI to generate sequence A; sequence B was generated in the reverse order. Twenty-eight radiologists from seven hospitals were randomly assigned to either sequence and then assigned to the other sequence after a washout period. The diagnostic performances of radiologists alone, radiologists with standard-AI assistance, and radiologists with sham-AI assistance were compared using sensitivity and specificity, and radiologists' susceptibility to sham AI suggestions was assessed. Results The testing dataset included 300 patients (median age, 61.0 years [IQR, 52.0-67.0]; 199 male), 50 of whom had aneurysms. Standard AI and sham AI performed as expected (sensitivity, 96.0% vs 0.0%; specificity, 82.0% vs 76.0%). The differences in sensitivity and specificity between standard AI-assisted and sham AI-assisted readings were 20.7% (95% CI: 15.8, 25.5 [superiority]) and 0.0% (95% CI: -2.0, 2.0 [noninferiority]), respectively. The difference between sham AI-assisted readings and radiologists alone was -2.6% (95% CI: -3.8, -1.4 [noninferiority]) for both sensitivity and specificity. After sham-AI suggestions, 5.3% (44 of 823) of true-positive and 1.2% (seven of 577) of false-negative results of radiologists alone were changed. Conclusion Radiologists' diagnostic performance was not compromised when aided by the proposed sham-AI model compared with their unassisted performance. <b>Keywords:</b> CT Angiography, Vascular, Intracranial Aneurysm, Sham AI <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. See also commentary by Mayfield and Romero in this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":29787,"journal":{"name":"Radiology-Artificial Intelligence","volume":" ","pages":"e240140"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology-Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.240140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate a sham-artificial intelligence (AI) model acting as a placebo control for a standard-AI model for diagnosis of intracranial aneurysm. Materials and Methods This retrospective crossover, blinded, multireader, multicase study was conducted from November 2022 to March 2023. A sham-AI model with near-zero sensitivity and similar specificity to a standard AI model was developed using 16 422 CT angiography examinations. Digital subtraction angiography-verified CT angiographic examinations from four hospitals were collected, half of which were processed by standard AI and the others by sham AI to generate sequence A; sequence B was generated in the reverse order. Twenty-eight radiologists from seven hospitals were randomly assigned to either sequence and then assigned to the other sequence after a washout period. The diagnostic performances of radiologists alone, radiologists with standard-AI assistance, and radiologists with sham-AI assistance were compared using sensitivity and specificity, and radiologists' susceptibility to sham AI suggestions was assessed. Results The testing dataset included 300 patients (median age, 61.0 years [IQR, 52.0-67.0]; 199 male), 50 of whom had aneurysms. Standard AI and sham AI performed as expected (sensitivity, 96.0% vs 0.0%; specificity, 82.0% vs 76.0%). The differences in sensitivity and specificity between standard AI-assisted and sham AI-assisted readings were 20.7% (95% CI: 15.8, 25.5 [superiority]) and 0.0% (95% CI: -2.0, 2.0 [noninferiority]), respectively. The difference between sham AI-assisted readings and radiologists alone was -2.6% (95% CI: -3.8, -1.4 [noninferiority]) for both sensitivity and specificity. After sham-AI suggestions, 5.3% (44 of 823) of true-positive and 1.2% (seven of 577) of false-negative results of radiologists alone were changed. Conclusion Radiologists' diagnostic performance was not compromised when aided by the proposed sham-AI model compared with their unassisted performance. Keywords: CT Angiography, Vascular, Intracranial Aneurysm, Sham AI Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. See also commentary by Mayfield and Romero in this issue.

开发并验证用于 CT 血管造影检测颅内动脉瘤的模拟人工智能模型
“刚刚接受”的论文经过了全面的同行评审,并已被接受发表在《放射学:人工智能》杂志上。这篇文章将经过编辑,布局和校样审查,然后在其最终版本出版。请注意,在最终编辑文章的制作过程中,可能会发现可能影响内容的错误。目的评价Sham-AI模型作为标准ai模型在颅内动脉瘤诊断中的安慰剂对照作用。材料和方法本研究于2022年11月至2023年3月进行回顾性交叉、盲法、多读者多病例研究。通过16,422次CT血管造影(CTA)检查,建立了一个灵敏度接近零、特异性与标准ai模型相似的Sham-AI模型。收集来自四家医院的数字减影血管造影验证的CTA检查,其中一半由Standard-AI处理,另一半由Sham-AI处理以生成序列A;序列B是反向生成的。来自7家医院的28名放射科医生被随机分配到任意一个序列,然后在洗脱期后分配到另一个序列。比较单独放射科医师、standard - ai辅助放射科医师和Sham-AI辅助放射科医师的诊断表现的敏感性和特异性,评估放射科医师对Sham-AI建议的易感性。结果纳入300例患者,中位年龄61 (IQR, 52.0-67.0)岁;199名男性),其中50人有动脉瘤。Standard-AI和Sham-AI表现符合预期(灵敏度:96.0%对0.0%,特异性:82.0%对76.0%)。standard - ai辅助和sham - ai辅助读数的敏感性和特异性差异分别为+20.7% (95%CI: 15.8%-25.5%,优势)和0.0% (95%CI: -2.0%-2.0%,非劣效性)。在敏感性和特异性方面,sham - ai辅助读数与单独放射科医生的差异为-2.6% (95%CI: -3.8%- 1.4%,非效性)。在Sham-AI建议下,仅有5.3%(44/823)的诊断结果为真阳性,1.2%(7/577)的结果为假阴性。结论:在Sham-AI模型的辅助下,放射科医生的诊断表现与无辅助的表现相比没有受到影响。在CC BY 4.0许可下发布。
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
CiteScore
16.20
自引率
1.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Radiology: Artificial Intelligence is a bi-monthly publication that focuses on the emerging applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence in the field of imaging across various disciplines. This journal is available online and accepts multiple manuscript types, including Original Research, Technical Developments, Data Resources, Review articles, Editorials, Letters to the Editor and Replies, Special Reports, and AI in Brief.
×
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