在临床实践中实施人工智能算法以减少胸部 CT 上遗漏的意外肺栓塞及其对短期生存率的影响。

IF 7 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Vera Inka Josephin Graeve, Simin Laures, Andres Spirig, Hasan Zaytoun, Claudia Gregoriano, Philipp Schuetz, Felice Burn, Sebastian Schindera, Tician Schnitzler
{"title":"在临床实践中实施人工智能算法以减少胸部 CT 上遗漏的意外肺栓塞及其对短期生存率的影响。","authors":"Vera Inka Josephin Graeve, Simin Laures, Andres Spirig, Hasan Zaytoun, Claudia Gregoriano, Philipp Schuetz, Felice Burn, Sebastian Schindera, Tician Schnitzler","doi":"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A substantial number of incidental pulmonary embolisms (iPEs) in computed tomography scans are missed by radiologists in their daily routine. This study analyzes the radiological reports of iPE cases before and after implementation of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for iPE detection. Furthermore, we investigate the anatomic distribution patterns within missed iPE cases and mortality within a 90-day follow-up in patients before and after AI use.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This institutional review board-approved observational single-center study included 5298 chest computed tomography scans performed for reasons other than suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). We compared 2 cohorts: cohort 1, consisting of 1964 patients whose original radiology reports were generated before the implementation of an AI algorithm, and cohort 2, consisting of 3334 patients whose scans were analyzed after the implementation of an Food and Drug Administration-approved and CE-certified AI algorithm for iPE detection (Aidoc Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel). For both cohorts, any discrepancies between the original radiology reports and the AI results were reviewed by 2 thoracic imaging subspecialized radiologists. In the original radiology report and in case of discrepancies with the AI algorithm, the expert review served as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. The rates of missed iPEs in both cohorts were compared statistically using STATA (Version 17.1). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In cohort 1 (mean age 70.6 years, 48% female [n = 944], 52% male [n = 1020]), the prevalence of confirmed iPE was 2.2% (n = 42), and the AI detected 61 suspicious iPEs, resulting in a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 99%, a PPV of 69%, and an NPV of 99%. Radiologists missed 50% of iPE cases in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (mean age 69 years, 47% female [n = 1567], 53% male [n = 1767]), the prevalence of confirmed iPEs was 1.7% (56/3334), with AI detecting 59 suspicious cases (sensitivity 90%, specificity 99%, PPV 95%, NPV 99%). The rate of missed iPEs by radiologists dropped to 7.1% after AI implementation, showing a significant improvement (P < 0.001). Most overlooked iPEs (61%) were in the right lower lobe. The survival analysis showed no significantly decreased 90-day mortality rate, with a hazards ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.96; P = 0.88).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of an AI algorithm significantly reduced the rate of missed iPEs from 50% to 7.1%, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Despite this improvement, the 90-day mortality rate remained unchanged. These findings highlight the AI tool's potential to assist radiologists in accurately identifying iPEs, although its implementation does not significantly affect short-term survival. Notably, most missed iPEs were located in the right lower lobe, suggesting that radiologists should pay particular attention to this area during evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14486,"journal":{"name":"Investigative Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of an AI Algorithm in Clinical Practice to Reduce Missed Incidental Pulmonary Embolisms on Chest CT and Its Impact on Short-Term Survival.\",\"authors\":\"Vera Inka Josephin Graeve, Simin Laures, Andres Spirig, Hasan Zaytoun, Claudia Gregoriano, Philipp Schuetz, Felice Burn, Sebastian Schindera, Tician Schnitzler\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/RLI.0000000000001122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A substantial number of incidental pulmonary embolisms (iPEs) in computed tomography scans are missed by radiologists in their daily routine. This study analyzes the radiological reports of iPE cases before and after implementation of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for iPE detection. Furthermore, we investigate the anatomic distribution patterns within missed iPE cases and mortality within a 90-day follow-up in patients before and after AI use.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This institutional review board-approved observational single-center study included 5298 chest computed tomography scans performed for reasons other than suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). We compared 2 cohorts: cohort 1, consisting of 1964 patients whose original radiology reports were generated before the implementation of an AI algorithm, and cohort 2, consisting of 3334 patients whose scans were analyzed after the implementation of an Food and Drug Administration-approved and CE-certified AI algorithm for iPE detection (Aidoc Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel). For both cohorts, any discrepancies between the original radiology reports and the AI results were reviewed by 2 thoracic imaging subspecialized radiologists. In the original radiology report and in case of discrepancies with the AI algorithm, the expert review served as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. The rates of missed iPEs in both cohorts were compared statistically using STATA (Version 17.1). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In cohort 1 (mean age 70.6 years, 48% female [n = 944], 52% male [n = 1020]), the prevalence of confirmed iPE was 2.2% (n = 42), and the AI detected 61 suspicious iPEs, resulting in a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 99%, a PPV of 69%, and an NPV of 99%. Radiologists missed 50% of iPE cases in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (mean age 69 years, 47% female [n = 1567], 53% male [n = 1767]), the prevalence of confirmed iPEs was 1.7% (56/3334), with AI detecting 59 suspicious cases (sensitivity 90%, specificity 99%, PPV 95%, NPV 99%). The rate of missed iPEs by radiologists dropped to 7.1% after AI implementation, showing a significant improvement (P < 0.001). Most overlooked iPEs (61%) were in the right lower lobe. The survival analysis showed no significantly decreased 90-day mortality rate, with a hazards ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.96; P = 0.88).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of an AI algorithm significantly reduced the rate of missed iPEs from 50% to 7.1%, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Despite this improvement, the 90-day mortality rate remained unchanged. These findings highlight the AI tool's potential to assist radiologists in accurately identifying iPEs, although its implementation does not significantly affect short-term survival. Notably, most missed iPEs were located in the right lower lobe, suggesting that radiologists should pay particular attention to this area during evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Investigative Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Investigative Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001122\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigative Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000001122","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

目的:放射科医生在日常工作中遗漏了大量计算机断层扫描中的偶发肺栓塞(iPE)。本研究分析了采用人工智能(AI)算法检测 iPE 前后 iPE 病例的放射学报告。此外,我们还调查了人工智能使用前后漏诊 iPE 病例的解剖分布模式和 90 天随访期间的死亡率:这项经机构审查委员会批准的单中心观察性研究纳入了 5298 例因疑似肺栓塞(PE)以外的原因而进行的胸部计算机断层扫描。我们对两个队列进行了比较:队列 1 由 1964 名患者组成,其原始放射学报告是在实施人工智能算法之前生成的;队列 2 由 3334 名患者组成,其扫描结果是在实施经食品药品管理局批准和 CE 认证的用于检测 iPE 的人工智能算法(Aidoc Medical,以色列特拉维夫)之后进行分析的。对于这两个队列,原始放射学报告与人工智能结果之间的任何差异均由 2 名胸部成像专业放射科医生进行审查。在原始放射学报告和人工智能算法不一致的情况下,专家审查结果作为参考标准。计算灵敏度、特异性、患病率、阴性预测值(NPV)和阳性预测值(PPV)。使用 STATA(17.1 版)对两个队列的 iPE 漏诊率进行了统计比较。采用卡普兰-梅耶曲线和考克斯比例危险模型进行生存分析:在队列 1(平均年龄 70.6 岁,48% 为女性 [n = 944],52% 为男性 [n = 1020])中,确诊 iPE 的发生率为 2.2%(n = 42),人工智能检测出 61 例可疑 iPE,灵敏度为 95%,特异性为 99%,PPV 为 69%,NPV 为 99%。在队列 1 中,放射医师漏诊了 50% 的 iPE 病例。在队列 2 中(平均年龄 69 岁,47% 为女性 [n = 1567],53% 为男性 [n = 1767]),确诊 iPE 的发病率为 1.7%(56/3334),人工智能检测出 59 例可疑病例(灵敏度 90%,特异性 99%,PPV 95%,NPV 99%)。实施人工智能后,放射科医生漏诊 iPE 的比例降至 7.1%,显示出显著改善(P < 0.001)。大多数被忽略的 iPE(61%)位于右下叶。生存分析显示,90天死亡率没有明显下降,危险比为0.95(95%置信区间,0.45-1.96;P = 0.88):结论:采用人工智能算法后,iPE 的漏诊率从 50% 显著降至 7.1%,从而提高了诊断的准确性。尽管有所改善,但 90 天死亡率仍保持不变。这些发现凸显了人工智能工具在协助放射科医生准确识别 iPE 方面的潜力,尽管其实施并不会对短期存活率产生重大影响。值得注意的是,大多数漏诊的 iPE 位于右下叶,这表明放射科医生在评估时应特别注意这一区域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementation of an AI Algorithm in Clinical Practice to Reduce Missed Incidental Pulmonary Embolisms on Chest CT and Its Impact on Short-Term Survival.

Objectives: A substantial number of incidental pulmonary embolisms (iPEs) in computed tomography scans are missed by radiologists in their daily routine. This study analyzes the radiological reports of iPE cases before and after implementation of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for iPE detection. Furthermore, we investigate the anatomic distribution patterns within missed iPE cases and mortality within a 90-day follow-up in patients before and after AI use.

Materials and methods: This institutional review board-approved observational single-center study included 5298 chest computed tomography scans performed for reasons other than suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). We compared 2 cohorts: cohort 1, consisting of 1964 patients whose original radiology reports were generated before the implementation of an AI algorithm, and cohort 2, consisting of 3334 patients whose scans were analyzed after the implementation of an Food and Drug Administration-approved and CE-certified AI algorithm for iPE detection (Aidoc Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel). For both cohorts, any discrepancies between the original radiology reports and the AI results were reviewed by 2 thoracic imaging subspecialized radiologists. In the original radiology report and in case of discrepancies with the AI algorithm, the expert review served as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. The rates of missed iPEs in both cohorts were compared statistically using STATA (Version 17.1). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis.

Results: In cohort 1 (mean age 70.6 years, 48% female [n = 944], 52% male [n = 1020]), the prevalence of confirmed iPE was 2.2% (n = 42), and the AI detected 61 suspicious iPEs, resulting in a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 99%, a PPV of 69%, and an NPV of 99%. Radiologists missed 50% of iPE cases in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (mean age 69 years, 47% female [n = 1567], 53% male [n = 1767]), the prevalence of confirmed iPEs was 1.7% (56/3334), with AI detecting 59 suspicious cases (sensitivity 90%, specificity 99%, PPV 95%, NPV 99%). The rate of missed iPEs by radiologists dropped to 7.1% after AI implementation, showing a significant improvement (P < 0.001). Most overlooked iPEs (61%) were in the right lower lobe. The survival analysis showed no significantly decreased 90-day mortality rate, with a hazards ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.96; P = 0.88).

Conclusions: The implementation of an AI algorithm significantly reduced the rate of missed iPEs from 50% to 7.1%, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Despite this improvement, the 90-day mortality rate remained unchanged. These findings highlight the AI tool's potential to assist radiologists in accurately identifying iPEs, although its implementation does not significantly affect short-term survival. Notably, most missed iPEs were located in the right lower lobe, suggesting that radiologists should pay particular attention to this area during evaluations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Investigative Radiology
Investigative Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
16.40%
发文量
188
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Investigative Radiology publishes original, peer-reviewed reports on clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, and related modalities. Emphasis is on early and timely publication. Primarily research-oriented, the journal also includes a wide variety of features of interest to clinical radiologists.
×
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