Daniel Freedman, Barun Bagga, Kira Melamud, Thomas O’Donnell, Emilio Vega, Malte Westerhoff, Bari Dane
{"title":"Quality assessment of expedited AI generated reformatted images for ED acquired CT abdomen and pelvis imaging","authors":"Daniel Freedman, Barun Bagga, Kira Melamud, Thomas O’Donnell, Emilio Vega, Malte Westerhoff, Bari Dane","doi":"10.1007/s00261-024-04578-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Retrospectively compare image quality, radiologist diagnostic confidence, and time for images to reach PACS for contrast enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations created on the scanner console by technologists versus those generated automatically by thin-client artificial intelligence (AI) mechanisms.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A retrospective PACS search identified adults who underwent an emergency department contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT in 07/2022 (Console Cohort) and 07/2023 (Server Cohort). Coronal and sagittal multiplanar reformatted images (MPR) were created by AI software in the Server cohort. Time to completion of MPR images was compared using 2-sample t-tests for all patients in both cohorts. Two radiologists qualitatively assessed image quality and diagnostic confidence on 5-point Likert scales for 50 consecutive examinations from each cohort. Additionally, they assessed for acute abdominopelvic findings. Continuous variables and qualitative scores were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. A <i>p</i> < .05 indicated statistical significance.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Mean[SD] time to exam completion in PACS was 8.7[11.1] minutes in the Console cohort (<i>n</i> = 728) and 4.6[6.6] minutes in the Server cohort (<i>n</i> = 892), <i>p</i> < .001. 50 examinations in the Console Cohort (28 women 22 men, 51[19] years) and Server cohort (27 women 23 men, 57[19] years) were included for radiologist review. Age, sex, CTDlvol, and DLP were not statistically different between the cohorts (all <i>p</i> > .05). There was no significant difference in image quality or diagnostic confidence for either reader when comparing the Console and Server cohorts (all <i>p</i> > .05).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Examinations utilizing AI generated MPRs on a thin-client architecture were completed approximately 50% faster than those utilizing reconstructions generated at the console with no statistical difference in diagnostic confidence or image quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04578-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Retrospectively compare image quality, radiologist diagnostic confidence, and time for images to reach PACS for contrast enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations created on the scanner console by technologists versus those generated automatically by thin-client artificial intelligence (AI) mechanisms.
Methods
A retrospective PACS search identified adults who underwent an emergency department contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT in 07/2022 (Console Cohort) and 07/2023 (Server Cohort). Coronal and sagittal multiplanar reformatted images (MPR) were created by AI software in the Server cohort. Time to completion of MPR images was compared using 2-sample t-tests for all patients in both cohorts. Two radiologists qualitatively assessed image quality and diagnostic confidence on 5-point Likert scales for 50 consecutive examinations from each cohort. Additionally, they assessed for acute abdominopelvic findings. Continuous variables and qualitative scores were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. A p < .05 indicated statistical significance.
Results
Mean[SD] time to exam completion in PACS was 8.7[11.1] minutes in the Console cohort (n = 728) and 4.6[6.6] minutes in the Server cohort (n = 892), p < .001. 50 examinations in the Console Cohort (28 women 22 men, 51[19] years) and Server cohort (27 women 23 men, 57[19] years) were included for radiologist review. Age, sex, CTDlvol, and DLP were not statistically different between the cohorts (all p > .05). There was no significant difference in image quality or diagnostic confidence for either reader when comparing the Console and Server cohorts (all p > .05).
Conclusion
Examinations utilizing AI generated MPRs on a thin-client architecture were completed approximately 50% faster than those utilizing reconstructions generated at the console with no statistical difference in diagnostic confidence or image quality.
期刊介绍：
Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section.
Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology:
· Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR)
· Published in Cooperation with:
European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR)
European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)
Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR)
· Efficient handling and Expeditious review
· Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style
· Global readership
· Readers can earn CME credits
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
