Identifying radiologically significant incidental breast lesions on chest CT: The added value of artificial intelligence.

Sarah P Thomas, Benjamin Wildman-Tobriner, Lasya Daggumati, Lawrence Ngo, Jacob Johnson, Kevin R Kalisz, Hongyi Zhang, Tyler J Fraum
{"title":"Identifying radiologically significant incidental breast lesions on chest CT: The added value of artificial intelligence.","authors":"Sarah P Thomas, Benjamin Wildman-Tobriner, Lasya Daggumati, Lawrence Ngo, Jacob Johnson, Kevin R Kalisz, Hongyi Zhang, Tyler J Fraum","doi":"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast lesions are a common but often missed incidental finding. We evaluated whether artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can efficiently detect radiologically significant incidental breast lesions (RSIBLs) missed by original interpreting radiologists (OIRs) on chest CT examinations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective multi-institutional study analyzed chest CT examinations performed in June 2017 by a national teleradiology practice. Visual classifier (VC) and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms flagged potential RSIBLs, which were reviewed independently by two primary readers; disagreements were adjudicated by a third reader. Sizes and margins of confirmed RSIBLs were evaluated similarly. Differences in size and margin obscuration between RSIBLs missed versus identified by OIRs were statistically assessed (alpha, 0.05). A workflow efficiency analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3279 of 3541 examinations (92.6 %) were marked negative by both algorithms (i.e., VC-/NLP-) and not reviewed. The two primary readers assessed 262 examinations for RSIBLs, with substantial agreement (kappa, 0.77). After adjudication, 76 RSIBLs were confirmed (73 females, 3 males). Compared with the OIRs, the VC algorithm identified more RSIBLs (90.8 % [69/76] vs 39.5 % [30/76]) though with more false positives (67.9 % [178/262] vs. 3.4 % [9/262]). Among the OIRs, missed RSIBLs had smaller diameters than identified RSIBLs (1.4 cm vs. 3.0 cm; P < 0.001). Our reader workflow reduced the number of images viewed by 97.3 % relative to a hypothetical full double-read approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An AI-based approach enhanced RSIBL detection rates. Although the AI-based approach also increased the number of false positives, our targeted review process allowed for efficient detection of missed RSIBLs.</p>","PeriodicalId":93969,"journal":{"name":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.06.001","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: Breast lesions are a common but often missed incidental finding. We evaluated whether artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can efficiently detect radiologically significant incidental breast lesions (RSIBLs) missed by original interpreting radiologists (OIRs) on chest CT examinations.

Methods: This retrospective multi-institutional study analyzed chest CT examinations performed in June 2017 by a national teleradiology practice. Visual classifier (VC) and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms flagged potential RSIBLs, which were reviewed independently by two primary readers; disagreements were adjudicated by a third reader. Sizes and margins of confirmed RSIBLs were evaluated similarly. Differences in size and margin obscuration between RSIBLs missed versus identified by OIRs were statistically assessed (alpha, 0.05). A workflow efficiency analysis was performed.

Results: 3279 of 3541 examinations (92.6 %) were marked negative by both algorithms (i.e., VC-/NLP-) and not reviewed. The two primary readers assessed 262 examinations for RSIBLs, with substantial agreement (kappa, 0.77). After adjudication, 76 RSIBLs were confirmed (73 females, 3 males). Compared with the OIRs, the VC algorithm identified more RSIBLs (90.8 % [69/76] vs 39.5 % [30/76]) though with more false positives (67.9 % [178/262] vs. 3.4 % [9/262]). Among the OIRs, missed RSIBLs had smaller diameters than identified RSIBLs (1.4 cm vs. 3.0 cm; P < 0.001). Our reader workflow reduced the number of images viewed by 97.3 % relative to a hypothetical full double-read approach.

Conclusion: An AI-based approach enhanced RSIBL detection rates. Although the AI-based approach also increased the number of false positives, our targeted review process allowed for efficient detection of missed RSIBLs.

识别胸部CT上具有放射学意义的偶发乳腺病变:人工智能的附加价值。
背景:乳腺病变是一种常见但经常被忽视的偶然发现。我们评估了人工智能(AI)算法是否能有效地检测出在胸部CT检查中被原始解释放射科医生(oir)遗漏的具有放射学意义的偶然乳腺病变(RSIBLs)。方法:本回顾性多机构研究分析了2017年6月由国家远程放射学诊所进行的胸部CT检查。视觉分类器(VC)和自然语言处理(NLP)算法标记潜在的rsibl,由两位主要读者独立审查;分歧由第三位读者裁决。对确认的rsibl的大小和边缘进行类似的评估。对oir未发现的与未发现的RSIBLs的大小和边缘模糊差异进行统计学评估(alpha, 0.05)。进行了工作流程效率分析。结果:3541例检查中有3279例(92.6%)被两种算法(即VC-/NLP-)标记为阴性,未复习。两位主要读者评估了262项rsibl检查,结果基本一致(kappa, 0.77)。经鉴定,共发现76例rsibl,其中女性73例,男性3例。与OIRs相比,VC算法识别出更多的rsibl (90.8% [69/76] vs 39.5%[30/76]),但假阳性更多(67.9% [178/262]vs 3.4%[9/262])。在oir中,未发现的RSIBLs直径小于已发现的RSIBLs (1.4 cm vs 3.0 cm;P < 0.001)。与假设的完全双读方法相比,我们的阅读器工作流程减少了97.3%的图像查看数量。结论:基于人工智能的方法可提高RSIBL的检出率。尽管基于人工智能的方法也增加了假阳性的数量,但我们的目标审查过程允许有效地检测遗漏的rsibl。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信