Value of clinical review for AI-guided deep vein thrombosis diagnosis with ultrasound imaging by non-expert operators

IF 15.1 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES NPJ Digital Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1038/s41746-025-01518-0
Giancarlo Speranza, Sven Mischkewitz, Fouad Al-Noor, Bernhard Kainz
{"title":"Value of clinical review for AI-guided deep vein thrombosis diagnosis with ultrasound imaging by non-expert operators","authors":"Giancarlo Speranza, Sven Mischkewitz, Fouad Al-Noor, Bernhard Kainz","doi":"10.1038/s41746-025-01518-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) carries high morbidity, mortality, and costs globally. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) image acquisition by non-ultrasound-trained providers, supported by an AI-based guidance and remote image review system, is believed to improve the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of diagnosis. We examine a database of 381 patients with suspected DVT who underwent an AI-guided ultrasound scan by a non-ultrasound-trained nurse and an expert sonographer-performed standard compression ultrasound scan. Each AI-guided scan was reviewed remotely by blinded radiologists or blinded independent POCUS-certified American Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians. Remote reviewer and standard scan diagnoses were compared. The primary endpoint is AI-guidance system sensitivity with clinician review; secondary endpoints include specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, image quality, inter-observer image quality, and vein compressibility agreement. Data was analysed through the bootstrapping method, bootstrapping with a second reader for each scan, and a majority voting system. Eighty percent (<i>n</i> = 304) of scans were of sufficient diagnostic quality. Radiologist reviewer sensitivity ranged from 90%–95%, specificity from 74%–84%, NPV from 98%–99%, PPV from 30%–42%, and potential expert-led ultrasound scans avoided from 39%–50%. Inter-observer agreement for image quality was 0.15 and for compressibility 0.61. EM reviewer sensitivity ranged from 95%–98%, specificity from 97%–100%, NPV was 99%, PPV from 81%–100%, and potential expert-led ultrasound scans avoided from 29%–38%. Inter-observer agreement for image quality was 0.59 and for compressibility 0.67. Diagnosing lower extremity DVT through AI-guided image acquisition with clinician review is feasible. Performance is influenced by reviewer expertise. We find potential positive impacts on health economics, including safely avoiding expert-led ultrasound scans.</p>","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01518-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) carries high morbidity, mortality, and costs globally. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) image acquisition by non-ultrasound-trained providers, supported by an AI-based guidance and remote image review system, is believed to improve the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of diagnosis. We examine a database of 381 patients with suspected DVT who underwent an AI-guided ultrasound scan by a non-ultrasound-trained nurse and an expert sonographer-performed standard compression ultrasound scan. Each AI-guided scan was reviewed remotely by blinded radiologists or blinded independent POCUS-certified American Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians. Remote reviewer and standard scan diagnoses were compared. The primary endpoint is AI-guidance system sensitivity with clinician review; secondary endpoints include specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, image quality, inter-observer image quality, and vein compressibility agreement. Data was analysed through the bootstrapping method, bootstrapping with a second reader for each scan, and a majority voting system. Eighty percent (n = 304) of scans were of sufficient diagnostic quality. Radiologist reviewer sensitivity ranged from 90%–95%, specificity from 74%–84%, NPV from 98%–99%, PPV from 30%–42%, and potential expert-led ultrasound scans avoided from 39%–50%. Inter-observer agreement for image quality was 0.15 and for compressibility 0.61. EM reviewer sensitivity ranged from 95%–98%, specificity from 97%–100%, NPV was 99%, PPV from 81%–100%, and potential expert-led ultrasound scans avoided from 29%–38%. Inter-observer agreement for image quality was 0.59 and for compressibility 0.67. Diagnosing lower extremity DVT through AI-guided image acquisition with clinician review is feasible. Performance is influenced by reviewer expertise. We find potential positive impacts on health economics, including safely avoiding expert-led ultrasound scans.

Abstract Image

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
人工智能引导非专业操作人员超声诊断深静脉血栓的临床价值
深静脉血栓(DVT)在全球具有很高的发病率、死亡率和成本。在人工智能引导和远程图像审查系统的支持下,由未经超声培训的医疗人员进行护理点超声(POCUS)图像采集被认为能提高诊断的及时性和成本效益。我们研究了一个包含 381 名疑似深静脉血栓患者的数据库,这些患者接受了由未接受过超声培训的护士进行的人工智能引导超声扫描和由超声专家进行的标准压缩超声扫描。每次人工智能引导扫描均由盲法放射科医生或盲法独立POCUS认证美国急诊医学(EM)医生进行远程审查。远程审查员和标准扫描诊断结果进行了比较。主要终点是人工智能引导系统与临床医生审查的灵敏度;次要终点包括特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、图像质量、观察者之间的图像质量和静脉可压缩性一致性。数据分析采用了自引导法、每次扫描使用第二名读片员的自引导法和多数票制。80%(n = 304)的扫描具有足够的诊断质量。放射科医生审阅者的灵敏度在 90%-95% 之间,特异性在 74%-84% 之间,NPV 在 98%-99% 之间,PPV 在 30%-42% 之间,专家主导的潜在超声扫描避免率在 39%-50% 之间。图像质量的观察者间一致性为 0.15,可压缩性为 0.61。EM 评审员的灵敏度为 95%-98%,特异性为 97%-100%,NPV 为 99%,PPV 为 81%-100%,避免了 29%-38%的潜在专家主导超声扫描。图像质量的观察者间一致性为 0.59,可压缩性为 0.67。通过人工智能引导的图像采集和临床医生的审查来诊断下肢深静脉血栓是可行的。其性能受审核人员专业知识的影响。我们发现这对卫生经济学有潜在的积极影响,包括安全地避免专家指导的超声扫描。
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
CiteScore
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics. The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.
期刊最新文献
ScarElastic: continuous elasticity field modeling for myocardial scar delineation in LGE-CMR. Artificial intelligence-based personalized treatment strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: integrating HSP90α for prognosis and survival prediction. Clinically informed semi-supervised learning improves disease annotation and equity from electronic health records: a glaucoma case study. Systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for mental health in cancer patients and survivors. Multimodal deep learning for cancer prognosis prediction with clinical information prompts integration.
×
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:604180095
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