Paul M Murphy, Julie Y An, Luke M Wojdyla, Adam C Searleman, Aman Khurana, Thomas W Loehfelm, Kathryn J Fowler, Christopher A Longhurst
{"title":"下一代虚拟/增强现实耳机的诊断性能:CT 诊断憩室炎的试点研究。","authors":"Paul M Murphy, Julie Y An, Luke M Wojdyla, Adam C Searleman, Aman Khurana, Thomas W Loehfelm, Kathryn J Fowler, Christopher A Longhurst","doi":"10.1007/s10278-024-01292-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Next-generation virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) headsets may rival the desktop computer systems that are approved for clinical interpretation of radiologic images, but require validation for high-resolution low-luminance diagnoses like diverticulitis. The primary aim of this study is to compare diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT between radiologists using a headset versus a desktop. The secondary aim is to survey participating radiologists about the usage of both devices. This pilot study retrospectively included 110 patients (mean age 64 ± 14 years, 62 women) who had abdomen/pelvis CT scans for which the report mentioned the presence or absence of diverticulitis. Scans were dichotomized and matched by time, for a total of 55 cases with diverticulitis and 55 controls with no diverticulitis. Six radiologists were oriented to the VR/AR headset (Apple Vision Pro) and viewer app (Visage Ease VP) using ten scans. They each scored 100 unknown scans on a 6-level scale for diverticulitis (1 = no diverticulitis, 6 = diverticulitis) on the headset and then on a desktop. Time per case was recorded. Finally, they completed a survey using 5-level scales about the ease of use of the headset and viewer app (1 = difficult, 5 = easy), about their experience with the headset (1 = bad, 5 = good), and about their preference between devices (1 = desktop, 5 = headset). Summary statistics and multi-reader multi-case ROC curves were calculated. The AUC (and 95% confidence interval) for diverticulitis was 0.93 (0.88-0.97) with the headset and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) with the desktop (p = 0.40). The median (and first-third quartiles) of time per case was 57 (41-76) seconds for the headset and 31 (22-64) seconds for the desktop (p < 0.001). Average survey scores ranged from 3.3 to 5 for ease of use, from 3 to 4.7 for experience, and from 2.2 to 3.3 for preference. Diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT was similar between the next-generation VR/AR headset and desktop. Ease of use, experience, and preference varied across different aspects of the devices and among radiologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":516858,"journal":{"name":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Performance of a Next-Generation Virtual/Augmented Reality Headset: A Pilot Study of Diverticulitis on CT.\",\"authors\":\"Paul M Murphy, Julie Y An, Luke M Wojdyla, Adam C Searleman, Aman Khurana, Thomas W Loehfelm, Kathryn J Fowler, Christopher A Longhurst\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10278-024-01292-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Next-generation virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) headsets may rival the desktop computer systems that are approved for clinical interpretation of radiologic images, but require validation for high-resolution low-luminance diagnoses like diverticulitis. The primary aim of this study is to compare diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT between radiologists using a headset versus a desktop. The secondary aim is to survey participating radiologists about the usage of both devices. This pilot study retrospectively included 110 patients (mean age 64 ± 14 years, 62 women) who had abdomen/pelvis CT scans for which the report mentioned the presence or absence of diverticulitis. Scans were dichotomized and matched by time, for a total of 55 cases with diverticulitis and 55 controls with no diverticulitis. Six radiologists were oriented to the VR/AR headset (Apple Vision Pro) and viewer app (Visage Ease VP) using ten scans. They each scored 100 unknown scans on a 6-level scale for diverticulitis (1 = no diverticulitis, 6 = diverticulitis) on the headset and then on a desktop. Time per case was recorded. Finally, they completed a survey using 5-level scales about the ease of use of the headset and viewer app (1 = difficult, 5 = easy), about their experience with the headset (1 = bad, 5 = good), and about their preference between devices (1 = desktop, 5 = headset). Summary statistics and multi-reader multi-case ROC curves were calculated. The AUC (and 95% confidence interval) for diverticulitis was 0.93 (0.88-0.97) with the headset and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) with the desktop (p = 0.40). The median (and first-third quartiles) of time per case was 57 (41-76) seconds for the headset and 31 (22-64) seconds for the desktop (p < 0.001). Average survey scores ranged from 3.3 to 5 for ease of use, from 3 to 4.7 for experience, and from 2.2 to 3.3 for preference. Diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT was similar between the next-generation VR/AR headset and desktop. Ease of use, experience, and preference varied across different aspects of the devices and among radiologists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516858,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01292-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of imaging informatics in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-024-01292-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Diagnostic Performance of a Next-Generation Virtual/Augmented Reality Headset: A Pilot Study of Diverticulitis on CT.
Next-generation virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) headsets may rival the desktop computer systems that are approved for clinical interpretation of radiologic images, but require validation for high-resolution low-luminance diagnoses like diverticulitis. The primary aim of this study is to compare diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT between radiologists using a headset versus a desktop. The secondary aim is to survey participating radiologists about the usage of both devices. This pilot study retrospectively included 110 patients (mean age 64 ± 14 years, 62 women) who had abdomen/pelvis CT scans for which the report mentioned the presence or absence of diverticulitis. Scans were dichotomized and matched by time, for a total of 55 cases with diverticulitis and 55 controls with no diverticulitis. Six radiologists were oriented to the VR/AR headset (Apple Vision Pro) and viewer app (Visage Ease VP) using ten scans. They each scored 100 unknown scans on a 6-level scale for diverticulitis (1 = no diverticulitis, 6 = diverticulitis) on the headset and then on a desktop. Time per case was recorded. Finally, they completed a survey using 5-level scales about the ease of use of the headset and viewer app (1 = difficult, 5 = easy), about their experience with the headset (1 = bad, 5 = good), and about their preference between devices (1 = desktop, 5 = headset). Summary statistics and multi-reader multi-case ROC curves were calculated. The AUC (and 95% confidence interval) for diverticulitis was 0.93 (0.88-0.97) with the headset and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) with the desktop (p = 0.40). The median (and first-third quartiles) of time per case was 57 (41-76) seconds for the headset and 31 (22-64) seconds for the desktop (p < 0.001). Average survey scores ranged from 3.3 to 5 for ease of use, from 3 to 4.7 for experience, and from 2.2 to 3.3 for preference. Diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT was similar between the next-generation VR/AR headset and desktop. Ease of use, experience, and preference varied across different aspects of the devices and among radiologists.