Radiology-Artificial Intelligence最新文献

Purpose To compare the effectiveness of weak supervision (ie, with examination-level labels only) and strong supervision (ie, with image-level labels) in training deep learning models for detection of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) on head CT scans. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, an attention-based convolutional neural network was trained with either local (ie, image level) or global (ie, examination level) binary labels on the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 2019 Brain CT Hemorrhage Challenge dataset of 21 736 examinations (8876 [40.8%] ICH) and 752 422 images (107 784 [14.3%] ICH). The CQ500 (436 examinations; 212 [48.6%] ICH) and CT-ICH (75 examinations; 36 [48.0%] ICH) datasets were employed for external testing. Performance in detecting ICH was compared between weak (examination-level labels) and strong (image-level labels) learners as a function of the number of labels available during training. Results On examination-level binary classification, strong and weak learners did not have different area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values on the internal validation split (0.96 vs 0.96; P = .64) and the CQ500 dataset (0.90 vs 0.92; P = .15). Weak learners outperformed strong ones on the CT-ICH dataset (0.95 vs 0.92; P = .03). Weak learners had better section-level ICH detection performance when more than 10 000 labels were available for training (average f₁ = 0.73 vs 0.65; P < .001). Weakly supervised models trained on the entire RSNA dataset required 35 times fewer labels than equivalent strong learners. Conclusion Strongly supervised models did not achieve better performance than weakly supervised ones, which could reduce radiologist labor requirements for prospective dataset curation. Keywords: CT, Head/Neck, Brain/Brain Stem, Hemorrhage Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023 See also commentary by Wahid and Fuentes in this issue.

Purpose To develop a fully automated device- and sequence-independent convolutional neural network (CNN) for reliable and high-throughput labeling of heterogeneous, unstructured MRI data. Materials and Methods Retrospective, multicentric brain MRI data (2179 patients with glioblastoma, 8544 examinations, 63 327 sequences) from 249 hospitals and 29 scanner types were used to develop a network based on ResNet-18 architecture to differentiate nine MRI sequence types, including T1-weighted, postcontrast T1-weighted, T2-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, susceptibility-weighted, apparent diffusion coefficient, diffusion-weighted (low and high b value), and gradient-recalled echo T2*-weighted and dynamic susceptibility contrast-related images. The two-dimensional-midsection images from each sequence were allocated to training or validation (approximately 80%) and testing (approximately 20%) using a stratified split to ensure balanced groups across institutions, patients, and MRI sequence types. The prediction accuracy was quantified for each sequence type, and subgroup comparison of model performance was performed using χ² tests. Results On the test set, the overall accuracy of the CNN (ResNet-18) ensemble model among all sequence types was 97.9% (95% CI: 97.6, 98.1), ranging from 84.2% for susceptibility-weighted images (95% CI: 81.8, 86.6) to 99.8% for T2-weighted images (95% CI: 99.7, 99.9). The ResNet-18 model achieved significantly better accuracy compared with ResNet-50 despite its simpler architecture (97.9% vs 97.1%; P ≤ .001). The accuracy of the ResNet-18 model was not affected by the presence versus absence of tumor on the two-dimensional-midsection images for any sequence type (P > .05). Conclusion The developed CNN (www.github.com/neuroAI-HD/HD-SEQ-ID) reliably differentiates nine types of MRI sequences within multicenter and large-scale population neuroimaging data and may enhance the speed, accuracy, and efficiency of clinical and research neuroradiologic workflows. Keywords: MR-Imaging, Neural Networks, CNS, Brain/Brain Stem, Computer Applications-General (Informatics), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Deep Learning Algorithms, Machine Learning Algorithms Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever-growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi-society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. This article is simultaneously published in Insights into Imaging (DOI 10.1186/s13244-023-01541-3), Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (DOI 10.1111/1754-9485.13612), Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (DOI 10.1177/08465371231222229), Journal of the American College of Radiology (DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.12.005), and Radiology: Artificial Intelligence (DOI 10.1148/ryai.230513). Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Radiology, Automation, Machine Learning Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. ©The Author(s) 2024. Editor's Note: The RSNA Board of Directors has endorsed this article. It has not undergone review or editing by this journal.