AI-Based Automated Quantification of Arterial Stenosis in Head and Neck CT Angiography: A Comparison with Manual Measurements from Digital Subtraction Angiography and CT Angiography.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 Medicine Clinical Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1007/s00062-024-01464-6
Xinyue Huan, Yang Yang, Shengwen Niu, Yongwei Yang, Bitong Tian, Dajing Guo, Kunhua Li
{"title":"AI-Based Automated Quantification of Arterial Stenosis in Head and Neck CT Angiography: A Comparison with Manual Measurements from Digital Subtraction Angiography and CT Angiography.","authors":"Xinyue Huan, Yang Yang, Shengwen Niu, Yongwei Yang, Bitong Tian, Dajing Guo, Kunhua Li","doi":"10.1007/s00062-024-01464-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for automated quantification of arterial stenosis in head and neck CT angiography (CTA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who received head and neck CTA and DSA between January 2019 and December 2021 in two centers were included. The quantitative performance of CerebralDoc per-lesion was evaluated through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis, comparing automated stenosis measurements and manual measurements across 0-100%, < 50%, ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% thresholds. Sensitivity analysis included linear and logistic regression, and subgroups analysis was performed to identify influencing factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>287 patients with 1765 lesions were analyzed. ICCs between CerebralDoc and DSA for ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% stenosis were excellent (0.955, 0.922, respectively), for 0-100% stenosis was good (0.735), and for < 50% stenosis was poor (0.056). For ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% stenosis of CerebralDoc and CTA manual measurements versus DSA, ICCs were close (0.955 vs 0.994; 0.922 vs 0.986), and differences were small (0.258% vs -0.362%; 0.369% vs -0.199%). The sensitivity analysis revealed that specific locations (V1, V2, V3, V4) and slender vessels have large or remarkable differences ranging from 15.551% to 44.238%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CerebralDoc exhibited excellent performance in automatically quantifying arterial stenosis of ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% in head and neck CTA. However, further research was needed to improve its performance for < 50% stenosis and to address differences in specific locations and slender vessels.</p>","PeriodicalId":10391,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-024-01464-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for automated quantification of arterial stenosis in head and neck CT angiography (CTA).

Methods: Patients who received head and neck CTA and DSA between January 2019 and December 2021 in two centers were included. The quantitative performance of CerebralDoc per-lesion was evaluated through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis, comparing automated stenosis measurements and manual measurements across 0-100%, < 50%, ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% thresholds. Sensitivity analysis included linear and logistic regression, and subgroups analysis was performed to identify influencing factors.

Results: 287 patients with 1765 lesions were analyzed. ICCs between CerebralDoc and DSA for ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% stenosis were excellent (0.955, 0.922, respectively), for 0-100% stenosis was good (0.735), and for < 50% stenosis was poor (0.056). For ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% stenosis of CerebralDoc and CTA manual measurements versus DSA, ICCs were close (0.955 vs 0.994; 0.922 vs 0.986), and differences were small (0.258% vs -0.362%; 0.369% vs -0.199%). The sensitivity analysis revealed that specific locations (V1, V2, V3, V4) and slender vessels have large or remarkable differences ranging from 15.551% to 44.238%.

Conclusion: CerebralDoc exhibited excellent performance in automatically quantifying arterial stenosis of ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% in head and neck CTA. However, further research was needed to improve its performance for < 50% stenosis and to address differences in specific locations and slender vessels.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Neuroradiology
Clinical Neuroradiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.60%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Clinical Neuroradiology provides current information, original contributions, and reviews in the field of neuroradiology. An interdisciplinary approach is accomplished by diagnostic and therapeutic contributions related to associated subjects. The international coverage and relevance of the journal is underlined by its being the official journal of the German, Swiss, and Austrian Societies of Neuroradiology.
期刊最新文献
Decreased Cortical Sulcus Depth in Parkinson's Disease with Excessive Daytime Sleepiness. Discriminators of Paraclinoid Aneurysm Rupture Based On Morphological Computer-Assisted Semiautomated Measurement (CASAM) and Hemodynamic Analysis. AI-Based Automated Quantification of Arterial Stenosis in Head and Neck CT Angiography: A Comparison with Manual Measurements from Digital Subtraction Angiography and CT Angiography. Societies' Communications. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of the Derivo Embolization Device in a Single-center Series.
×
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