Michel Dupuis , Léo Delbos , Alexandra Rouquette , Catherine Adamsbaum , Raphaël Veil
{"title":"External validation of an artificial intelligence solution for the detection of elbow fractures and joint effusions in children","authors":"Michel Dupuis , Léo Delbos , Alexandra Rouquette , Catherine Adamsbaum , Raphaël Veil","doi":"10.1016/j.diii.2023.09.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to conduct an external validation of an artificial intelligence (AI) solution for the detection of elbow fractures and joint effusions using radiographs from a real-life cohort of children.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>This single-center retrospective study was conducted on 758 radiographic sets (1637 images) obtained from consecutive emergency room visits of 712 children (mean age, 7.27 ± 3.97 [standard deviation] years; age range, 7 months and 10 days to 15 years and 10 months), referred for a trauma of the elbow. For each set, fracture and/or effusion detection by eleven senior radiologists (reference standard) and AI solution was recorded. Diagnostic performance of the AI solution was measured via four different approaches: fracture detection (presence/absence of fracture as binary variable), fracture enumeration, fracture localization and lesion detection (fracture and/or a joint effusion used as constructed binary variable).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The sensitivity of the AI solution for each of the four approaches was >89%. Greatest sensitivity of the AI solution was obtained for lesion detection (95.0%; 95% confidence interval: 92.1–96.9). The specificity of the AI solution ranged between 63% (for lesion detection) and 77% (for fracture detection). For all four approaches, the negative predictive values were >92% and the positive predictive values ranged between 54% (for fracture enumeration and localization) and 73% (for lesion detection). Specificity was lower for plastered children for all approaches (<em>P</em> < 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The AI solution demonstrates high performances for detecting elbow's fracture and/or joint effusion in children. However, in our context of use, 8% of the radiographic sets ruled-out by the algorithm concerned children with a genuine traumatic elbow lesion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48656,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211568423001973","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to conduct an external validation of an artificial intelligence (AI) solution for the detection of elbow fractures and joint effusions using radiographs from a real-life cohort of children.
Materials and methods
This single-center retrospective study was conducted on 758 radiographic sets (1637 images) obtained from consecutive emergency room visits of 712 children (mean age, 7.27 ± 3.97 [standard deviation] years; age range, 7 months and 10 days to 15 years and 10 months), referred for a trauma of the elbow. For each set, fracture and/or effusion detection by eleven senior radiologists (reference standard) and AI solution was recorded. Diagnostic performance of the AI solution was measured via four different approaches: fracture detection (presence/absence of fracture as binary variable), fracture enumeration, fracture localization and lesion detection (fracture and/or a joint effusion used as constructed binary variable).
Results
The sensitivity of the AI solution for each of the four approaches was >89%. Greatest sensitivity of the AI solution was obtained for lesion detection (95.0%; 95% confidence interval: 92.1–96.9). The specificity of the AI solution ranged between 63% (for lesion detection) and 77% (for fracture detection). For all four approaches, the negative predictive values were >92% and the positive predictive values ranged between 54% (for fracture enumeration and localization) and 73% (for lesion detection). Specificity was lower for plastered children for all approaches (P < 0.001).
Conclusion
The AI solution demonstrates high performances for detecting elbow's fracture and/or joint effusion in children. However, in our context of use, 8% of the radiographic sets ruled-out by the algorithm concerned children with a genuine traumatic elbow lesion.
期刊介绍:
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging accepts publications originating from any part of the world based only on their scientific merit. The Journal focuses on illustrated articles with great iconographic topics and aims at aiding sharpening clinical decision-making skills as well as following high research topics. All articles are published in English.
Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging publishes editorials, technical notes, letters, original and review articles on abdominal, breast, cancer, cardiac, emergency, forensic medicine, head and neck, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, interventional, obstetric, pediatric, thoracic and vascular imaging, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, as well as contrast material, computer developments, health policies and practice, and medical physics relevant to imaging.