Explore the vast range of titles available.

Non-contrast head CT (NCCT) is extremely insensitive for early (< 3–6 h) acute infarct identification. We developed a deep learning model that detects and delineates suspected early acute infarcts on NCCT, using diffusion MRI as ground truth (3566 NCCT/MRI training patient pairs). The model substantially outperformed 3 expert neuroradiologists on a test set of 150 CT scans of patients who were potential candidates for thrombectomy (60 stroke-negative, 90 stroke-positive middle cerebral artery territory only infarcts), with sensitivity 96% (specificity 72%) for the model versus 61–66% (specificity 90–92%) for the experts; model infarct volume estimates also strongly correlated with those of diffusion MRI (r 2  > 0.98). When this 150 CT test set was expanded to include a total of 364 CT scans with a more heterogeneous distribution of infarct locations (94 stroke-negative, 270 stroke-positive mixed territory infarcts), model sensitivity was 97%, specificity 99%, for detection of infarcts larger than the 70 mL volume threshold used for patient selection in several major randomized controlled trials of thrombectomy treatment.

A standardized objective evaluation method is needed to compare machine learning (ML) algorithms as these tools become available for clinical use. Therefore, we designed, built, and tested an evaluation pipeline with the goal of normalizing performance measurement of independently developed algorithms, using a common test dataset of our clinical imaging. Three vendor applications for detecting solid, part-solid, and groundglass lung nodules in chest CT examinations were assessed in this retrospective study using our data-preprocessing and algorithm assessment chain. The pipeline included tools for image cohort creation and de-identification; report and image annotation for ground-truth labeling; server partitioning to receive vendor “black box” algorithms and to enable model testing on our internal clinical data (100 chest CTs with 243 nodules) from within our security firewall; model validation and result visualization; and performance assessment calculating algorithm recall, precision, and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). Algorithm true positives, false positives, false negatives, recall, and precision for detecting lung nodules were as follows: Vendor-1 (194, 23, 49, 0.80, 0.89); Vendor-2 (182, 270, 61, 0.75, 0.40); Vendor-3 (75, 120, 168, 0.32, 0.39). The AUCs for detection of solid (0.61–0.74), groundglass (0.66–0.86) and part-solid (0.52–0.86) nodules varied between the three vendors. Our ML model validation pipeline enabled testing of multi-vendor algorithms within the institutional firewall. Wide variations in algorithm performance for detection as well as classification of lung nodules justifies the premise for a standardized objective ML algorithm evaluation process.

The Agatston score is a measure of cardiovascular disease traditionally calculated on cardiac gated computed tomography (CT) of the chest. Cardiac gated CT is resource-intensive, can be hard to access, and involves extra radiation exposure. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to opportunistically calculate Agatston scores on non-gated CTs performed for other indications. This retrospective standalone performance assessment compared the accuracy of an AI model (Riverain Technologies ClearRead CT CAC) at calculating Agatston scores on non-gated CTs to both consensus radiologist interpretations on the same CTs and Agatston scores from the original radiology reports of paired cardiac gated CTs. It involved 491 non-contrast CT chest cases acquired at five hospitals in the United States between January 2022 and December 2023; approximately two-thirds had a paired cardiac gated CT. It compared the agreement of Agatston categories (0, 1–99, 100–399 and ≥ 400) using the quadratic weighted Kappa coefficient and the correlation of Agatston scores using the Spearman coefficient. The agreement of Agatston categories between the AI model and ground truth radiologists was 0.959 (95% CI: 0.943 to 0.975); this result was broadly consistent across sex, age group, race, ethnicity and CT scanner manufacturer subgroups. The agreement between the AI model and paired cardiac gated CT was 0.906 (95% CI: 0.882 to 0.927). The correlations of Agatston scores for these two comparisons were 0.975 (95% CI: 0.962 to 0.987) and 0.942 (95% CI: 0.920 to 0.957) respectively. The assessed AI model accurately calculated Agatston scores on non-gated CTs and produced similar scores to paired cardiac gated CTs. Its use could broaden screening for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, enabling opportunistic screening on CTs captured for other indications.

To compare the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) and Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) scores from frontal chest radiographs (CXRs) for predicting patient outcomes and the need for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 pneumonia. Our IRB-approved study included 1367 serial CXRs from 405 adult patients (mean age 65 ± 16 years) from two sites in the US (Site A) and South Korea (Site B). We recorded information pertaining to patient demographics (age, gender), smoking history, comorbid conditions (such as cancer, cardiovascular and other diseases), vital signs (temperature, oxygen saturation), and available laboratory data (such as WBC count and CRP). Two thoracic radiologists performed the qualitative assessment of all CXRs based on the RALE score for assessing the severity of lung involvement. All CXRs were processed with a commercial AI algorithm to obtain the percentage of the lung affected with findings related to COVID-19 (AI score). Independent t- and chi-square tests were used in addition to multiple logistic regression with Area Under the Curve (AUC) as output for predicting disease outcome and the need for mechanical ventilation. The RALE and AI scores had a strong positive correlation in CXRs from each site (r 2  = 0.79–0.86; p  < 0.0001). Patients who died or received mechanical ventilation had significantly higher RALE and AI scores than those with recovery or without the need for mechanical ventilation ( p  < 0.001). Patients with a more substantial difference in baseline and maximum RALE scores and AI scores had a higher prevalence of death and mechanical ventilation ( p  < 0.001). The addition of patients’ age, gender, WBC count, and peripheral oxygen saturation increased the outcome prediction from 0.87 to 0.94 (95% CI 0.90–0.97) for RALE scores and from 0.82 to 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.95) for the AI scores. AI algorithm is as robust a predictor of adverse patient outcome (death or need for mechanical ventilation) as subjective RALE scores in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability. The ability to quickly identify the presence of acute infarct and quantify the volume on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has important treatment implications. We developed a machine learning model that used the apparent diffusion coefficient and diffusion weighted imaging series. It was trained on 6,657 MRI studies from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH; Boston, USA). All studies were labelled positive or negative for infarct (classification annotation) with 377 having the region of interest outlined (segmentation annotation). The different annotation types facilitated training on more studies while not requiring the extensive time to manually segment every study. We initially validated the model on studies sequestered from the training set. We then tested the model on studies from three clinical scenarios: consecutive stroke team activations for 6-months at MGH, consecutive stroke team activations for 6-months at a hospital that did not provide training data (Brigham and Women’s Hospital [BWH]; Boston, USA), and an international site (Diagnósticos da América SA [DASA]; Brazil). The model results were compared to radiologist ground truth interpretations. The model performed better when trained on classification and segmentation annotations (area under the receiver operating curve [AUROC] 0.995 [95% CI 0.992–0.998] and median Dice coefficient for segmentation overlap of 0.797 [IQR 0.642–0.861]) compared to segmentation annotations alone (AUROC 0.982 [95% CI 0.972–0.990] and Dice coefficient 0.776 [IQR 0.584–0.857]). The model accurately identified infarcts for MGH stroke team activations (AUROC 0.964 [95% CI 0.943–0.982], 381 studies), BWH stroke team activations (AUROC 0.981 [95% CI 0.966–0.993], 247 studies), and at DASA (AUROC 0.998 [95% CI 0.993–1.000], 171 studies). The model accurately segmented infarcts with Pearson correlation comparing model output and ground truth volumes between 0.968 and 0.986 for the three scenarios. Acute infarct can be accurately detected and segmented on MRI in real-world clinical scenarios using a machine learning model.

Purpose: We assessed whether a CXR AI algorithm was able to detect missed or mislabeled chest radiograph (CXR) findings in radiology reports. Methods: We queried a multi-institutional radiology reports search database of 13 million reports to identify all CXR reports with addendums from 1999–2021. Of the 3469 CXR reports with an addendum, a thoracic radiologist excluded reports where addenda were created for typographic errors, wrong report template, missing sections, or uninterpreted signoffs. The remaining reports contained addenda (279 patients) with errors related to side-discrepancies or missed findings such as pulmonary nodules, consolidation, pleural effusions, pneumothorax, and rib fractures. All CXRs were processed with an AI algorithm. Descriptive statistics were performed to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the AI in detecting missed or mislabeled findings. Results: The AI had high sensitivity (96%), specificity (100%), and accuracy (96%) for detecting all missed and mislabeled CXR findings. The corresponding finding-specific statistics for the AI were nodules (96%, 100%, 96%), pneumothorax (84%, 100%, 85%), pleural effusion (100%, 17%, 67%), consolidation (98%, 100%, 98%), and rib fractures (87%, 100%, 94%). Conclusions: The CXR AI could accurately detect mislabeled and missed findings. Clinical Relevance: The CXR AI can reduce the frequency of errors in detection and side-labeling of radiographic findings.

Purpose: Motion-impaired CT images can result in limited or suboptimal diagnostic interpretation (with missed or miscalled lesions) and patient recall. We trained and tested an artificial intelligence (AI) model for identifying substantial motion artifacts on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) that have a negative impact on diagnostic interpretation. Methods: With IRB approval and HIPAA compliance, we queried our multicenter radiology report database (mPower, Nuance) for CTPA reports between July 2015 and March 2022 for the following terms: “motion artifacts”, “respiratory motion”, “technically inadequate”, and “suboptimal” or “limited exam”. All CTPA reports were from two quaternary (Site A, n = 335; B, n = 259) and a community (C, n = 199) healthcare sites. A thoracic radiologist reviewed CT images of all positive hits for motion artifacts (present or absent) and their severity (no diagnostic effect or major diagnostic impairment). Coronal multiplanar images from 793 CTPA exams were de-identified and exported offline into an AI model building prototype (Cognex Vision Pro, Cognex Corporation) to train an AI model to perform two-class classification (“motion” or “no motion”) with data from the three sites (70% training dataset, n = 554; 30% validation dataset, n = 239). Separately, data from Site A and Site C were used for training and validating; testing was performed on the Site B CTPA exams. A five-fold repeated cross-validation was performed to evaluate the model performance with accuracy and receiver operating characteristics analysis (ROC). Results: Among the CTPA images from 793 patients (mean age 63 ± 17 years; 391 males, 402 females), 372 had no motion artifacts, and 421 had substantial motion artifacts. The statistics for the average performance of the AI model after five-fold repeated cross-validation for the two-class classification included 94% sensitivity, 91% specificity, 93% accuracy, and 0.93 area under the ROC curve (AUC: 95% CI 0.89–0.97). Conclusion: The AI model used in this study can successfully identify CTPA exams with diagnostic interpretation limiting motion artifacts in multicenter training and test datasets. Clinical relevance: The AI model used in the study can help alert technologists about the presence of substantial motion artifacts on CTPA, where a repeat image acquisition can help salvage diagnostic information.

Background: Missed findings in chest X-ray interpretation are common and can have serious consequences. Methods: Our study included 2407 chest radiographs (CXRs) acquired at three Indian and five US sites. To identify CXRs reported as normal, we used a proprietary radiology report search engine based on natural language processing (mPower, Nuance). Two thoracic radiologists reviewed all CXRs and recorded the presence and clinical significance of abnormal findings on a 5-point scale (1—not important; 5—critical importance). All CXRs were processed with the AI model (Qure.ai) and outputs were recorded for the presence of findings. Data were analyzed to obtain area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: Of 410 CXRs (410/2407, 18.9%) with unreported/missed findings, 312 (312/410, 76.1%) findings were clinically important: pulmonary nodules (n = 157), consolidation (60), linear opacities (37), mediastinal widening (21), hilar enlargement (17), pleural effusions (11), rib fractures (6) and pneumothoraces (3). AI detected 69 missed findings (69/131, 53%) with an AUC of up to 0.935. The AI model was generalizable across different sites, geographic locations, patient genders and age groups. Conclusion: A substantial number of important CXR findings are missed; the AI model can help to identify and reduce the frequency of important missed findings in a generalizable manner.

(1) Background: Optimal anatomic coverage is important for radiation-dose optimization. We trained and tested (R2.2.4) two (R3-2) deep learning (DL) algorithms on a machine vision tool library platform (Cognex Vision Pro Deep Learning software) to recognize anatomic landmarks and classify chest CT as those with optimum, under-scanned, or over-scanned scan length. (2) Methods: To test our hypothesis, we performed a study with 428 consecutive chest CT examinations (mean age 70 ± 14 years; male:female 190:238) performed at one of the four hospitals. CT examinations from two hospitals were used to train the DL classification algorithms to identify lung apices and bases. The developed algorithms were then tested on the data from the remaining two hospitals. For each CT, we recorded the scan lengths above and below the lung apices and bases. Model performance was assessed with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. (3) Results: The two DL models for lung apex and bases had high sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and areas under the curve (AUC) for identifying under-scanning (100%, 99%, 99%, and 0.999 (95% CI 0.996–1.000)) and over-scanning (99%, 99%, 99%, and 0.998 (95%CI 0.992–1.000)). (4) Conclusions: Our DL models can accurately identify markers for missing anatomic coverage and over-scanning in chest CTs.