Evaluation of the impact of artificial intelligence-assisted image interpretation on the diagnostic performance of clinicians in identifying pneumothoraces on plain chest X-ray: a multi-case multi-reader study.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-25 DOI:10.1136/emermed-2023-213620
Alex Novak, Sarim Ather, Avneet Gill, Peter Aylward, Giles Maskell, Gordon W Cowell, Abdala Trinidad Espinosa Morgado, Tom Duggan, Melissa Keevill, Olivia Gamble, Osama Akrama, Elizabeth Belcher, Rhona Taberham, Rob Hallifax, Jasdeep Bahra, Abhishek Banerji, Jon Bailey, Antonia James, Ali Ansaripour, Nathan Spence, John Wrightson, Waqas Jarral, Steven Barry, Saher Bhatti, Kerry Astley, Amied Shadmaan, Sharon Ghelman, Alec Baenen, Jason Oke, Claire Bloomfield, Hilal Johnson, Mark Beggs, Fergus Gleeson
{"title":"Evaluation of the impact of artificial intelligence-assisted image interpretation on the diagnostic performance of clinicians in identifying pneumothoraces on plain chest X-ray: a multi-case multi-reader study.","authors":"Alex Novak, Sarim Ather, Avneet Gill, Peter Aylward, Giles Maskell, Gordon W Cowell, Abdala Trinidad Espinosa Morgado, Tom Duggan, Melissa Keevill, Olivia Gamble, Osama Akrama, Elizabeth Belcher, Rhona Taberham, Rob Hallifax, Jasdeep Bahra, Abhishek Banerji, Jon Bailey, Antonia James, Ali Ansaripour, Nathan Spence, John Wrightson, Waqas Jarral, Steven Barry, Saher Bhatti, Kerry Astley, Amied Shadmaan, Sharon Ghelman, Alec Baenen, Jason Oke, Claire Bloomfield, Hilal Johnson, Mark Beggs, Fergus Gleeson","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2023-213620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted image interpretation is a fast-developing area of clinical innovation. Most research to date has focused on the performance of AI-assisted algorithms in comparison with that of radiologists rather than evaluating the algorithms' impact on the clinicians who often undertake initial image interpretation in routine clinical practice. This study assessed the impact of AI-assisted image interpretation on the diagnostic performance of frontline acute care clinicians for the detection of pneumothoraces (PTX).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentre blinded multi-case multi-reader study was conducted between October 2021 and January 2022. The online study recruited 18 clinician readers from six different clinical specialties, with differing levels of seniority, across four English hospitals. The study included 395 plain CXR images, 189 positive for PTX and 206 negative. The reference standard was the consensus opinion of two thoracic radiologists with a third acting as arbitrator. General Electric Healthcare Critical Care Suite (GEHC CCS) PTX algorithm was applied to the final dataset. Readers individually interpreted the dataset without AI assistance, recording the presence or absence of a PTX and a confidence rating. Following a 'washout' period, this process was repeated including the AI output.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of the performance of the algorithm for detecting or ruling out a PTX revealed an overall AUROC of 0.939. Overall reader sensitivity increased by 11.4% (95% CI 4.8, 18.0, p=0.002) from 66.8% (95% CI 57.3, 76.2) unaided to 78.1% aided (95% CI 72.2, 84.0, p=0.002), specificity 93.9% (95% CI 90.9, 97.0) without AI to 95.8% (95% CI 93.7, 97.9, p=0.247). The junior reader subgroup showed the largest improvement at 21.7% (95% CI 10.9, 32.6), increasing from 56.0% (95% CI 37.7, 74.3) to 77.7% (95% CI 65.8, 89.7, p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study indicates that AI-assisted image interpretation significantly enhances the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in detecting PTX, particularly benefiting less experienced practitioners. While overall interpretation time remained unchanged, the use of AI improved diagnostic confidence and sensitivity, especially among junior clinicians. These findings underscore the potential of AI to support less skilled clinicians in acute care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"602-609"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503157/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213620","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted image interpretation is a fast-developing area of clinical innovation. Most research to date has focused on the performance of AI-assisted algorithms in comparison with that of radiologists rather than evaluating the algorithms' impact on the clinicians who often undertake initial image interpretation in routine clinical practice. This study assessed the impact of AI-assisted image interpretation on the diagnostic performance of frontline acute care clinicians for the detection of pneumothoraces (PTX).

Methods: A multicentre blinded multi-case multi-reader study was conducted between October 2021 and January 2022. The online study recruited 18 clinician readers from six different clinical specialties, with differing levels of seniority, across four English hospitals. The study included 395 plain CXR images, 189 positive for PTX and 206 negative. The reference standard was the consensus opinion of two thoracic radiologists with a third acting as arbitrator. General Electric Healthcare Critical Care Suite (GEHC CCS) PTX algorithm was applied to the final dataset. Readers individually interpreted the dataset without AI assistance, recording the presence or absence of a PTX and a confidence rating. Following a 'washout' period, this process was repeated including the AI output.

Results: Analysis of the performance of the algorithm for detecting or ruling out a PTX revealed an overall AUROC of 0.939. Overall reader sensitivity increased by 11.4% (95% CI 4.8, 18.0, p=0.002) from 66.8% (95% CI 57.3, 76.2) unaided to 78.1% aided (95% CI 72.2, 84.0, p=0.002), specificity 93.9% (95% CI 90.9, 97.0) without AI to 95.8% (95% CI 93.7, 97.9, p=0.247). The junior reader subgroup showed the largest improvement at 21.7% (95% CI 10.9, 32.6), increasing from 56.0% (95% CI 37.7, 74.3) to 77.7% (95% CI 65.8, 89.7, p<0.01).

Conclusion: The study indicates that AI-assisted image interpretation significantly enhances the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in detecting PTX, particularly benefiting less experienced practitioners. While overall interpretation time remained unchanged, the use of AI improved diagnostic confidence and sensitivity, especially among junior clinicians. These findings underscore the potential of AI to support less skilled clinicians in acute care settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估人工智能辅助图像解读对临床医生在普通胸部 X 光片上识别气胸诊断性能的影响:一项多病例多阅片器研究。
背景:人工智能(AI)辅助图像解读是一个快速发展的临床创新领域。迄今为止,大多数研究都侧重于人工智能辅助算法与放射科医生的性能对比,而不是评估算法对常规临床实践中经常进行初始图像解读的临床医生的影响。本研究评估了人工智能辅助图像解读对一线急诊临床医生检测气胸(PTX)诊断能力的影响:方法:2021年10月至2022年1月期间开展了一项多中心盲法多病例多阅片研究。这项在线研究招募了 18 名临床医生阅片员,他们来自英国四家医院的六个不同临床专科,具有不同的资历水平。研究包括 395 张普通 CXR 图像,其中 189 张 PTX 阳性,206 张阴性。参考标准是两名胸部放射专家的一致意见,第三名专家担任仲裁人。通用电气医疗保健重症监护套件(GEHC CCS)的 PTX 算法应用于最终数据集。阅读者在没有人工智能辅助的情况下单独解读数据集,记录是否存在 PTX 以及置信度。经过一段时间的 "冲洗 "后,重复这一过程,包括人工智能的输出结果:对该算法检测或排除 PTX 的性能分析表明,总体 AUROC 为 0.939。读者的总体灵敏度提高了 11.4% (95% CI 4.8, 18.0, p=0.002),从无辅助时的 66.8% (95% CI 57.3, 76.2) 提高到有辅助时的 78.1% (95% CI 72.2, 84.0, p=0.002),特异性从无人工智能时的 93.9% (95% CI 90.9, 97.0) 提高到 95.8% (95% CI 93.7, 97.9, p=0.247)。初级读者亚组的改善幅度最大,为 21.7% (95% CI 10.9, 32.6),从 56.0% (95% CI 37.7, 74.3) 提高到 77.7% (95% CI 65.8, 89.7, p结论:研究表明,人工智能辅助图像判读大大提高了临床医生检测 PTX 的诊断准确性,尤其对经验不足的医生大有裨益。虽然总体判读时间保持不变,但使用人工智能提高了诊断信心和灵敏度,尤其是对初级临床医生而言。这些发现强调了人工智能在支持急症护理环境中技术水平较低的临床医生方面的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
期刊最新文献
Best evidence topic report: can intradermal sterile water injections provide effective pain relief in patients with renal colic? Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Is it time to reframe resuscitation in trauma? Are there differences in low-acuity emergency department visits between culturally and linguistically diverse migrants and people with English-speaking background: a population-based linkage study of adults over 45.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1