Artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy in fracture detection from plain radiographs and comparing it with clinicians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Fracture detection is one of the most commonly used and studied aspects of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to summarize available literature and data regarding AI performance in fracture detection on plain radiographs and various factors affecting it.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies evaluating AI algorithms in detecting bone fractures in plain radiographs, combined their performance using meta-analysis (a bivariate regression approach), and compared it with that of clinicians. We also analyzed the factors potentially affecting algorithm performance using meta-regression.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 100 studies. In 83 studies with confusion matrices, AI algorithms showed a sensitivity of 91.43% and a specificity of 92.12% (Area under the summary receiver operator curve = 0.968). After adjustment and false discovery rate correction, tibia/fibula (excluding ankle) fractures were associated with higher (7.0%, p=0.004) AI sensitivity, while more recent publications (5.5%, p=0.003) and Xception architecture (6.6%, p<0.001) were associated with higher specificity. Clinicians and AI showed similar specificity in fracture identification, although AI leaned to higher sensitivity (7.6%, p=0.07). Radiologists, on the other hand, were more specific than AI overall and in several subgroups, and more sensitive to hip fractures before FDR correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available AI aids could result in a significant improvement in care where radiologists are not readily available. Moreover, identifying factors affecting algorithm performance could guide AI development teams in their process of optimizing their products.

Low Contrast Volume Protocol in Routine Chest CT Amid the Global Contrast Shortage: A Single Institution Experience

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of low contrast volume (LCV) chest CT performed with multiple contrast agents on multivendor CT with varying scanning techniques.

METHODS

The study included 361 patients (65 ± 15 years; M: F 173:188) who underwent LCV chest CT on one of the six 64-256 detector-row CT scanners using single-energy (SECT) or dual-energy (DECT) modes. All patients were scanned with either a fixed-LCV (LCVf, n = 103) or weight-based LCV (LCVw, n = 258) protocol. Two thoracic radiologists independently assessed all LCV CT and patients' prior standard contrast volume (SCV, n = 263) chest CT for optimality of contrast enhancement in thoracic vasculature, cardiac chambers, and in pleuro-parenchymal and mediastinal abnormalities. CT attenuations were recorded in the main pulmonary trunk, ascending, and descending thoracic aorta. To assess the interobserver agreement, pulmonary arterial enhancement was divided into two groups: optimal or suboptimal.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference among patients' BMI (p = 0.883) in the three groups. DECT had a significantly higher aortic arterial enhancement (250 ± 99HU vs 228 ± 76 HU for SECT, p < 0.001). Optimal enhancement was present in 558 of 624 chest CT (89.4%), whereas 66 of 624 chest CT with suboptimal enhancement was noted in 48 of 258 LCVw (18.6%) and 14 of 103 LCVf (13.6%). Most patients with suboptimal enhancement with LCVw injection protocol were overweight/obese (30/48; 62.5%), (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LCV chest CT can be performed across complex multivendor, multicontrast media, multiscanner, and multiprotocol CT practices. However, LCV chest CT examinations can result in suboptimal contrast enhancement in patients with larger body habitus.

Radiologist-Trained AI Model for Identifying Suboptimal Chest-Radiographs

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Suboptimal chest radiographs (CXR) can limit interpretation of critical findings. Radiologist-trained AI models were evaluated for differentiating suboptimal(sCXR) and optimal(oCXR) chest radiographs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our IRB-approved study included 3278 CXRs from adult patients (mean age 55 ± 20 years) identified from a retrospective search of CXR in radiology reports from 5 sites. A chest radiologist reviewed all CXRs for the cause of suboptimality. The de-identified CXRs were uploaded into an AI server application for training and testing 5 AI models. The training set consisted of 2202 CXRs (n = 807 oCXR; n = 1395 sCXR) while 1076 CXRs (n = 729 sCXR; n = 347 oCXR) were used for testing. Data were analyzed with the Area under the curve (AUC) for the model's ability to classify oCXR and sCXR correctly.

RESULTS

For the two-class classification into sCXR or oCXR from all sites, for CXR with missing anatomy, AI had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC of 78%, 95%, 91%, 0.87(95% CI 0.82-0.92), respectively. AI identified obscured thoracic anatomy with 91% sensitivity, 97% specificity, 95% accuracy, and 0.94 AUC (95% CI 0.90-0.97). Inadequate exposure with 90% sensitivity, 93% specificity, 92% accuracy, and AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.95). The presence of low lung volume was identified with 96% sensitivity, 92% specificity, 93% accuracy, and 0.94 AUC (95% CI 0.92-0.96). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC of AI in identifying patient rotation were 92%, 96%, 95%, and 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.98), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The radiologist-trained AI models can accurately classify optimal and suboptimal CXRs. Such AI models at the front end of radiographic equipment can enable radiographers to repeat sCXRs when necessary.

Auto-Detection of Motion Artifacts on CT Pulmonary Angiograms with a Physician-Trained AI Algorithm

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.

On the occassion of world kidney day 2023; renal impacts of COVID-19

World kidney day is an international campaign focused on bringing awareness to kidney health throughout the world and reducing the incidence of renal disease and its related medical complications. This mini-review sought to take a short look on the renal impact of SARS-CoV-2, with a particular focus on post-COVID-19 nephropathy as a new dilemma in the era of nephrology, which can be a new concern for nephrologists that requires more attention and particular strategies.

Performance of threshold-based stone segmentation and radiomics for determining the composition of kidney stones from single-energy CT

PURPOSE

Knowledge of kidney stone composition can help in patient management; urine composition analysis and dual-energy CT are frequently used to assess stone type. We assessed if threshold-based stone segmentation and radiomics can determine the composition of kidney stones from single-energy, non-contrast abdomen-pelvis CT.

METHODS

With IRB approval, we identified 218 consecutive patients (mean age 64 ± 13 years; male:female 138:80) with the presence of kidney stones on non-contrast, abdomen-pelvis CT and surgical or biochemical proof of their stone composition. CT examinations were performed on one of the seven multidetector-row scanners from four vendors (GE, Philips, Siemens, Toshiba). Deidentified CT images were processed with a radiomics prototype (Frontier, Siemens Healthineers) to segment the entire kidney volumes with an AI-based organ segmentation tool. We applied a threshold of 130 HU to isolate stones in the segmented kidneys and to estimate radiomics over the segmented stone volume. A coinvestigator verified kidney stone segmentation and adjusted the volume of interest to include the entire stone volume when necessary. We applied multiple logistic regression tests with precision recall plots to obtain area under the curve (AUC) using a built-in R statistical program.

RESULTS

The threshold-based stone segmentation successfully isolated kidney stones (uric acid: n = 102 patients, calcium oxalate/phosphate: n = 116 patients) in all patients. Radiomics differentiated between calcium and uric acid stones with an AUC of 0.78 (p < 0.01, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), 0.79 sensitivity, and 0.90 specificity regardless of CT vendors (GE CT: AUC = 0.82, p < 0.01, 95% CI 0.740-0896; Siemens CT: AUC = 0.77, 95% CI 0.700-0.846, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Automated threshold-based stone segmentation and radiomics can differentiate between calcium oxalate/phosphate and urate stones from non-contrast, single-energy abdomen CT.

Complex Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and CT Radiation Dose

Concerns over need for CT radiation dose optimization and reduction led to improved scanner efficiency and introduction of several reconstruction techniques and image processing-based software. The latest technologies use artificial intelligence (AI) for CT dose optimization and image quality improvement. While CT dose optimization has and can benefit from AI, variations in scanner technologies, reconstruction methods, and scan protocols can lead to substantial variations in radiation doses and image quality across and within different scanners. These variations in turn can influence performance of AI algorithms being deployed for tasks such as detection, segmentation, characterization, and quantification. We review the complex relationship between AI and CT radiation dose.

Association of Artificial Intelligence-Aided Chest Radiograph Interpretation With Reader Performance and Efficiency

IMPORTANCE

The efficient and accurate interpretation of radiologic images is paramount.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) engine used concurrently can improve reader performance and efficiency in interpreting chest radiograph abnormalities.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cohort study was conducted from April to November 2021 and involved radiologists, including attending radiologists, thoracic radiology fellows, and residents, who independently participated in 2 observer performance test sessions. The sessions included a reading session with AI and a session without AI, in a randomized crossover manner with a 4-week washout period in between. The AI produced a heat map and the image-level probability of the presence of the referrable lesion. The data used were collected at 2 quaternary academic hospitals in Boston, Massachusetts: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care Chest X-Ray [MIMIC-CXR]) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The ground truths for the labels were created via consensual reading by 2 thoracic radiologists. Each reader documented their findings in a customized report template, in which the 4 target chest radiograph findings and the reader confidence of the presence of each finding was recorded. The time taken for reporting each chest radiograph was also recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated for each target finding.

RESULTS

A total of 6 radiologists (2 attending radiologists, 2 thoracic radiology fellows, and 2 residents) participated in the study. The study involved a total of 497 frontal chest radiographs-247 from the MIMIC-CXR data set (demographic data for patients were not available) and 250 chest radiographs from MGH (mean [SD] age, 63 [16] years; 133 men [53.2%])-from adult patients with and without 4 target findings (pneumonia, nodule, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion). The target findings were found in 351 of 497 chest radiographs. The AI was associated with higher sensitivity for all findings compared with the readers (nodule, 0.816 [95% CI, 0.732-0.882] vs 0.567 [95% CI, 0.524-0.611]; pneumonia, 0.887 [95% CI, 0.834-0.928] vs 0.673 [95% CI, 0.632-0.714]; pleural effusion, 0.872 [95% CI, 0.808-0.921] vs 0.889 [95% CI, 0.862-0.917]; pneumothorax, 0.988 [95% CI, 0.932-1.000] vs 0.792 [95% CI, 0.756-0.827]). AI-aided interpretation was associated with significantly improved reader sensitivities for all target findings, without negative impacts on the specificity. Overall, the AUROCs of readers improved for all 4 target findings, with significant improvements in detection of pneumothorax and nodule. The reporting time with AI was 10% lower than without AI (40.8 vs 36.9 seconds; difference, 3.9 seconds; 95% CI, 2.9-5.2 seconds; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that AI-aided interpretation was associated with improved reader performance and efficiency for identifying major thoracic findings on a chest radiograph.