{"title":"[解决观察者短缺的深度学习方法]。","authors":"Nariaki Tabata, Tetsuya Ijichi, Masaya Tominaga, Kazunori Kitajima, Shuto Okaba, Lisa Sonoda, Shinichi Katou, Tomoya Masumoto, Asami Obata, Yuna Kawahara, Toshirou Inoue, Tadamitsu Ideguchi","doi":"10.6009/jjrt.25-1554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study developed a deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) observer to address the shortage of skilled human observers and evaluated the impact of substituting human observers with AI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a CT system (Aquilion Prime SP; Canon Medical Systems, Tochigi) and modules CTP682 and CTP712 to scan the phantom (Catphan 700; Toyo Medic, Tokyo). The imaging conditions were set to a tube voltage of 120 kV and tube currents of 200, 160, 120, 80, 40, and 20 mA. Each condition was scanned twice, resulting in a total of 24 images. After the paired comparison experiment with 5 observers, deep learning models based on VGG19 and VGG16 were trained. We evaluated the variance, including both human and AI observers, and examined the impact of replacing humans with AI on the average degree of preference and statistical significance. These evaluations were conducted both when the training and assessments were from the same module and when they were from different modules.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Variance ranged from 0.085 to 0.177 (mean: 0.124). Despite using different modules for training and evaluation, the variance remained consistent, indicating that the results are independent of the training data. The average degree of preference and image rankings were nearly identical. Between 200 mA and 160 mA, AI results differed from human results in terms of statistical significance, though the difference was minimal. The discrepancy arose from differences in observations between humans and AI, yet it fell within the expected range of variation typically observed among human observers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that replacing human observers with AI has a minimal impact and may help alleviate observer shortages. The main limitation is the inability to modify evaluation criteria or stages with the trained models.</p>","PeriodicalId":74309,"journal":{"name":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","volume":"81 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Deep Learning Approaches to Address the Shortage of Observers].\",\"authors\":\"Nariaki Tabata, Tetsuya Ijichi, Masaya Tominaga, Kazunori Kitajima, Shuto Okaba, Lisa Sonoda, Shinichi Katou, Tomoya Masumoto, Asami Obata, Yuna Kawahara, Toshirou Inoue, Tadamitsu Ideguchi\",\"doi\":\"10.6009/jjrt.25-1554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study developed a deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) observer to address the shortage of skilled human observers and evaluated the impact of substituting human observers with AI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a CT system (Aquilion Prime SP; Canon Medical Systems, Tochigi) and modules CTP682 and CTP712 to scan the phantom (Catphan 700; Toyo Medic, Tokyo). The imaging conditions were set to a tube voltage of 120 kV and tube currents of 200, 160, 120, 80, 40, and 20 mA. Each condition was scanned twice, resulting in a total of 24 images. After the paired comparison experiment with 5 observers, deep learning models based on VGG19 and VGG16 were trained. We evaluated the variance, including both human and AI observers, and examined the impact of replacing humans with AI on the average degree of preference and statistical significance. These evaluations were conducted both when the training and assessments were from the same module and when they were from different modules.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Variance ranged from 0.085 to 0.177 (mean: 0.124). Despite using different modules for training and evaluation, the variance remained consistent, indicating that the results are independent of the training data. The average degree of preference and image rankings were nearly identical. Between 200 mA and 160 mA, AI results differed from human results in terms of statistical significance, though the difference was minimal. The discrepancy arose from differences in observations between humans and AI, yet it fell within the expected range of variation typically observed among human observers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results suggest that replacing human observers with AI has a minimal impact and may help alleviate observer shortages. The main limitation is the inability to modify evaluation criteria or stages with the trained models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74309,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi\",\"volume\":\"81 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.25-1554\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai zasshi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.25-1554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究开发了一种基于深度学习的人工智能(AI)观察者,以解决熟练的人类观察者的短缺问题,并评估了用人工智能取代人类观察者的影响。方法:采用Aquilion Prime SP;佳能医疗系统,枥木)和模块CTP682和CTP712扫描幻影(Catphan 700;东洋医院,东京)。成像条件设置为管电压为120 kV,管电流为200、160、120、80、40和20 mA。每种情况扫描两次,总共得到24张图像。通过5个观察者的配对对比实验,训练基于VGG19和VGG16的深度学习模型。我们评估了方差,包括人类和人工智能观察者,并检查了用人工智能取代人类对平均偏好程度和统计显著性的影响。当培训和评估来自同一模块和来自不同模块时,都进行了这些评估。结果:方差范围为0.085 ~ 0.177(平均值:0.124)。尽管使用不同的模块进行训练和评估,但方差保持一致,表明结果与训练数据无关。平均偏好程度和图像排名几乎相同。在200 mA和160 mA之间,人工智能的结果与人类的结果在统计显著性方面存在差异,尽管差异很小。这种差异源于人类和人工智能之间的观察差异,但它落在人类观察者通常观察到的预期范围内。结论:我们的研究结果表明,用人工智能取代人类观察员的影响很小,可能有助于缓解观察员短缺的问题。主要的限制是不能用训练好的模型修改评估标准或阶段。
[Deep Learning Approaches to Address the Shortage of Observers].
Purpose: This study developed a deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) observer to address the shortage of skilled human observers and evaluated the impact of substituting human observers with AI.
Methods: We used a CT system (Aquilion Prime SP; Canon Medical Systems, Tochigi) and modules CTP682 and CTP712 to scan the phantom (Catphan 700; Toyo Medic, Tokyo). The imaging conditions were set to a tube voltage of 120 kV and tube currents of 200, 160, 120, 80, 40, and 20 mA. Each condition was scanned twice, resulting in a total of 24 images. After the paired comparison experiment with 5 observers, deep learning models based on VGG19 and VGG16 were trained. We evaluated the variance, including both human and AI observers, and examined the impact of replacing humans with AI on the average degree of preference and statistical significance. These evaluations were conducted both when the training and assessments were from the same module and when they were from different modules.
Results: Variance ranged from 0.085 to 0.177 (mean: 0.124). Despite using different modules for training and evaluation, the variance remained consistent, indicating that the results are independent of the training data. The average degree of preference and image rankings were nearly identical. Between 200 mA and 160 mA, AI results differed from human results in terms of statistical significance, though the difference was minimal. The discrepancy arose from differences in observations between humans and AI, yet it fell within the expected range of variation typically observed among human observers.
Conclusion: Our results suggest that replacing human observers with AI has a minimal impact and may help alleviate observer shortages. The main limitation is the inability to modify evaluation criteria or stages with the trained models.