Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Pulmonary Embolisms via CT: A Workflow-oriented Implementation.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Selim Abed, Klaus Hergan, Jan Dörrenberg, Lucas Brandstetter, Marcus Lauschmann
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Pulmonary Embolisms <i>via</i> CT: A Workflow-oriented Implementation.","authors":"Selim Abed, Klaus Hergan, Jan Dörrenberg, Lucas Brandstetter, Marcus Lauschmann","doi":"10.2174/0115734056367860250630072749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Detecting Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is critical for effective patient care, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown promise in supporting radiologists in this task. Integrating AI into radiology workflows requires not only evaluation of its diagnostic accuracy but also assessment of its acceptance among clinical staff.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the performance of an AI algorithm in detecting pulmonary embolisms (PEs) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) and to assess the level of acceptance of the algorithm among radiology department staff.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed anonymized computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) data from a university clinic. Surveys were conducted at three and nine months after the implementation of a commercially available AI algorithm designed to flag CTPA scans with suspected PE. A thoracic radiologist and a cardiac radiologist served as the reference standard for evaluating the performance of the algorithm. The AI analyzed 59 CTPA cases during the initial evaluation and 46 cases in the follow-up assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the first evaluation, the AI algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 94.3%. By the second evaluation, its performance had improved, achieving a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 96.7%. Radiologists' acceptance of the AI tool increased over time. Nevertheless, despite this growing acceptance, many radiologists expressed a preference for hiring an additional physician over adopting the AI solution if the costs were comparable.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of the AI algorithm, with improved performance over time and a reduced rate of unanalyzed scans. These improvements likely reflect both algorithmic refinement and better data integration. Departmental feedback indicated growing user confidence and trust in the tool. However, many radiologists continued to prefer the addition of a resident over reliance on the algorithm. Overall, the AI showed promise as a supportive \"second-look\" tool in emergency radiology settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The AI algorithm demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to that reported in similar studies for detecting PE on CTPA, with both sensitivity and specificity showing improvement over time. Radiologists' acceptance of the algorithm increased throughout the study period, underscoring its potential as a complementary tool to physician expertise in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":54215,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Imaging Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Imaging Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056367860250630072749","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Detecting Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is critical for effective patient care, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown promise in supporting radiologists in this task. Integrating AI into radiology workflows requires not only evaluation of its diagnostic accuracy but also assessment of its acceptance among clinical staff.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the performance of an AI algorithm in detecting pulmonary embolisms (PEs) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) and to assess the level of acceptance of the algorithm among radiology department staff.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed anonymized computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) data from a university clinic. Surveys were conducted at three and nine months after the implementation of a commercially available AI algorithm designed to flag CTPA scans with suspected PE. A thoracic radiologist and a cardiac radiologist served as the reference standard for evaluating the performance of the algorithm. The AI analyzed 59 CTPA cases during the initial evaluation and 46 cases in the follow-up assessment.

Results: In the first evaluation, the AI algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 94.3%. By the second evaluation, its performance had improved, achieving a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 96.7%. Radiologists' acceptance of the AI tool increased over time. Nevertheless, despite this growing acceptance, many radiologists expressed a preference for hiring an additional physician over adopting the AI solution if the costs were comparable.

Discussion: Our study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of the AI algorithm, with improved performance over time and a reduced rate of unanalyzed scans. These improvements likely reflect both algorithmic refinement and better data integration. Departmental feedback indicated growing user confidence and trust in the tool. However, many radiologists continued to prefer the addition of a resident over reliance on the algorithm. Overall, the AI showed promise as a supportive "second-look" tool in emergency radiology settings.

Conclusion: The AI algorithm demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to that reported in similar studies for detecting PE on CTPA, with both sensitivity and specificity showing improvement over time. Radiologists' acceptance of the algorithm increased throughout the study period, underscoring its potential as a complementary tool to physician expertise in clinical practice.

通过CT检测肺栓塞的人工智能:一个面向工作流程的实现。
检测肺栓塞(PE)对于有效的患者护理至关重要,人工智能(AI)在支持放射科医生完成这项任务方面显示出了希望。将人工智能整合到放射学工作流程中,不仅需要评估其诊断准确性,还需要评估临床工作人员对其的接受程度。目的:本研究旨在评估一种人工智能算法在增强ct肺血管造影(CTPAs)上检测肺栓塞(PEs)的性能,并评估放射科工作人员对该算法的接受程度。方法:本回顾性研究分析了来自一所大学诊所的匿名计算机断层肺血管造影(CTPA)数据。在实施一种商用人工智能算法后的3个月和9个月进行了调查,该算法旨在标记CTPA扫描是否存在疑似PE。以胸椎放射科医师和心脏放射科医师作为评价算法性能的参考标准。AI在初始评估时分析了59例CTPA病例,在后续评估中分析了46例。结果:在第一次评估中,AI算法的敏感性为84.6%,特异性为94.3%。第二次评价时,其灵敏度为90.9%,特异性为96.7%。随着时间的推移,放射科医生对人工智能工具的接受程度越来越高。然而,尽管这种接受度越来越高,但许多放射科医生表示,如果成本相当,他们更倾向于雇佣一名额外的医生,而不是采用人工智能解决方案。讨论:我们的研究证明了人工智能算法的高灵敏度和特异性,随着时间的推移,性能有所提高,未分析扫描的比率也有所降低。这些改进可能反映了算法的改进和更好的数据集成。部门反馈显示,用户对该工具的信心和信任日益增强。然而,许多放射科医生仍然倾向于增加住院医生,而不是依赖算法。总的来说,人工智能显示出在紧急放射环境中作为一种支持性的“第二视角”工具的前景。结论:AI算法在CTPA上检测PE的诊断性能与类似研究报告相当,随着时间的推移,灵敏度和特异性都有所提高。在整个研究期间,放射科医生对该算法的接受程度不断提高,强调了它作为临床实践中医生专业知识的补充工具的潜力。
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
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
246
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Medical Imaging Reviews publishes frontier review articles, original research articles, drug clinical trial studies and guest edited thematic issues on all the latest advances on medical imaging dedicated to clinical research. All relevant areas are covered by the journal, including advances in the diagnosis, instrumentation and therapeutic applications related to all modern medical imaging techniques. The journal is essential reading for all clinicians and researchers involved in medical imaging and diagnosis.
×
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