Radiology-Artificial Intelligence最新文献

Purpose To evaluate the ability of a semiautonomous artificial intelligence (AI) model to identify screening mammograms not suspicious for breast cancer and reduce the number of false-positive examinations. Materials and Methods The deep learning algorithm was trained using 123 248 two-dimensional digital mammograms (6161 cancers) and a retrospective study was performed on three nonoverlapping datasets of 14 831 screening mammography examinations (1026 cancers) from two U.S. institutions and one U.K. institution (2008-2017). The stand-alone performance of humans and AI was compared. Human plus AI performance was simulated to examine reductions in the cancer detection rate, number of examinations, false-positive callbacks, and benign biopsies. Metrics were adjusted to mimic the natural distribution of a screening population, and bootstrapped CIs and P values were calculated. Results Retrospective evaluation on all datasets showed minimal changes to the cancer detection rate with use of the AI device (noninferiority margin of 0.25 cancers per 1000 examinations: U.S. dataset 1, P = .02; U.S. dataset 2, P < .001; U.K. dataset, P < .001). On U.S. dataset 1 (11 592 mammograms; 101 cancers; 3810 female patients; mean age, 57.3 years ± 10.0 [SD]), the device reduced screening examinations requiring radiologist interpretation by 41.6% (95% CI: 40.6%, 42.4%; P < .001), diagnostic examinations callbacks by 31.1% (95% CI: 28.7%, 33.4%; P < .001), and benign needle biopsies by 7.4% (95% CI: 4.1%, 12.4%; P < .001). U.S. dataset 2 (1362 mammograms; 330 cancers; 1293 female patients; mean age, 55.4 years ± 10.5) was reduced by 19.5% (95% CI: 16.9%, 22.1%; P < .001), 11.9% (95% CI: 8.6%, 15.7%; P < .001), and 6.5% (95% CI: 0.0%, 19.0%; P = .08), respectively. The U.K. dataset (1877 mammograms; 595 cancers; 1491 female patients; mean age, 63.5 years ± 7.1) was reduced by 36.8% (95% CI: 34.4%, 39.7%; P < .001), 17.1% (95% CI: 5.9%, 30.1%: P < .001), and 5.9% (95% CI: 2.9%, 11.5%; P < .001), respectively. Conclusion This work demonstrates the potential of a semiautonomous breast cancer screening system to reduce false positives, unnecessary procedures, patient anxiety, and medical expenses. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Semiautonomous Deep Learning, Breast Cancer, Screening Mammography Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Purpose To develop and externally test a scan-to-prediction deep learning pipeline for noninvasive, MRI-based BRAF mutational status classification for pediatric low-grade glioma. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included two pediatric low-grade glioma datasets with linked genomic and diagnostic T2-weighted MRI data of patients: Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Hospital (development dataset, n = 214 [113 (52.8%) male; 104 (48.6%) BRAF wild type, 60 (28.0%) BRAF fusion, and 50 (23.4%) BRAF V600E]) and the Children's Brain Tumor Network (external testing, n = 112 [55 (49.1%) male; 35 (31.2%) BRAF wild type, 60 (53.6%) BRAF fusion, and 17 (15.2%) BRAF V600E]). A deep learning pipeline was developed to classify BRAF mutational status (BRAF wild type vs BRAF fusion vs BRAF V600E) via a two-stage process: (a) three-dimensional tumor segmentation and extraction of axial tumor images and (b) section-wise, deep learning-based classification of mutational status. Knowledge-transfer and self-supervised approaches were investigated to prevent model overfitting, with a primary end point of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). To enhance model interpretability, a novel metric, center of mass distance, was developed to quantify the model attention around the tumor. Results A combination of transfer learning from a pretrained medical imaging-specific network and self-supervised label cross-training (TransferX) coupled with consensus logic yielded the highest classification performance with an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.91), 0.87 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.97), and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.95) for BRAF wild type, BRAF fusion, and BRAF V600E, respectively, on internal testing. On external testing, the pipeline yielded an AUC of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.86), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.89), and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.88) for BRAF wild type, BRAF fusion, and BRAF V600E, respectively. Conclusion Transfer learning and self-supervised cross-training improved classification performance and generalizability for noninvasive pediatric low-grade glioma mutational status prediction in a limited data scenario. Keywords: Pediatrics, MRI, CNS, Brain/Brain Stem, Oncology, Feature Detection, Diagnosis, Supervised Learning, Transfer Learning, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Purpose To evaluate the effect of implementing two distinct commercially available deep learning reconstruction (DLR) algorithms on the efficiency of MRI examinations conducted in real clinical practice within an outpatient setting at a large, multicenter institution. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 7346 examinations from 10 clinical MRI scanners analyzed during the pre- and postimplementation periods of DLR methods. Two different types of DLR methods, namely Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)-based and k-space-based methods, were implemented in half of the scanners (three DICOM-based and two k-space-based), while the remaining five scanners had no DLR method implemented. Scan and room times of each examination type during the pre- and postimplementation periods were compared among the different DLR methods using the Wilcoxon test. Results The application of deep learning methods resulted in significant reductions in scan and room times for certain examination types. The DICOM-based method demonstrated up to a 53% reduction in scan times and a 41% reduction in room times for various study types. The k-space-based method demonstrated up to a 27% reduction in scan times but did not significantly reduce room times. Conclusion DLR methods were associated with reductions in scan and room times in a clinical setting, though the effects were heterogeneous depending on examination type. Thus, potential adopters should carefully evaluate their case mix to determine the impact of integrating these tools. Keywords: Deep Learning MRI Reconstruction, Reconstruction Algorithms, DICOM-based Reconstruction, k-Space-based Reconstruction © RSNA, 2024 See also the commentary by GharehMohammadi in this issue.

Purpose To develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model for the diagnosis of breast cancer on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images and to investigate whether it could improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce radiologist reading time. Materials and Methods A deep learning AI algorithm was developed and validated for DBT with retrospectively collected examinations (January 2010 to December 2021) from 14 institutions in the United States and South Korea. A multicenter reader study was performed to compare the performance of 15 radiologists (seven breast specialists, eight general radiologists) in interpreting DBT examinations in 258 women (mean age, 56 years ± 13.41 [SD]), including 65 cancer cases, with and without the use of AI. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and reading time were evaluated. Results The AUC for stand-alone AI performance was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92, 0.94). With AI, radiologists' AUC improved from 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.93) to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88, 0.96) (P = .003) in the reader study. AI showed higher specificity (89.64% [95% CI: 85.34%, 93.94%]) than radiologists (77.34% [95% CI: 75.82%, 78.87%]) (P < .001). When reading with AI, radiologists' sensitivity increased from 85.44% (95% CI: 83.22%, 87.65%) to 87.69% (95% CI: 85.63%, 89.75%) (P = .04), with no evidence of a difference in specificity. Reading time decreased from 54.41 seconds (95% CI: 52.56, 56.27) without AI to 48.52 seconds (95% CI: 46.79, 50.25) with AI (P < .001). Interreader agreement measured by Fleiss κ increased from 0.59 to 0.62. Conclusion The AI model showed better diagnostic accuracy than radiologists in breast cancer detection, as well as reduced reading times. The concurrent use of AI in DBT interpretation could improve both accuracy and efficiency. Keywords: Breast, Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD), Tomosynthesis, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Breast Cancer, Computer-Aided Detection, Screening Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024 See also the commentary by Bae in this issue.

The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) has held artificial intelligence competitions to tackle real-world medical imaging problems at least annually since 2017. This article examines the challenges and processes involved in organizing these competitions, with a specific emphasis on the creation and curation of high-quality datasets. The collection of diverse and representative medical imaging data involves dealing with issues of patient privacy and data security. Furthermore, ensuring quality and consistency in data, which includes expert labeling and accounting for various patient and imaging characteristics, necessitates substantial planning and resources. Overcoming these obstacles requires meticulous project management and adherence to strict timelines. The article also highlights the potential of crowdsourced annotation to progress medical imaging research. Through the RSNA competitions, an effective global engagement has been realized, resulting in innovative solutions to complex medical imaging problems, thus potentially transforming health care by enhancing diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. Keywords: Use of AI in Education, Artificial Intelligence © RSNA, 2024.

Purpose To develop a fast and fully automated deep learning (DL)-based method for the MRI planimetric segmentation and measurement of the brainstem and ventricular structures most affected in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, T1-weighted MR images in healthy controls (n = 84) were used to train DL models for segmenting the midbrain, pons, middle cerebellar peduncle (MCP), superior cerebellar peduncle (SCP), third ventricle, and frontal horns (FHs). Internal, external, and clinical test datasets (n = 305) were used to assess segmentation model reliability. DL masks from test datasets were used to automatically extract midbrain and pons areas and the width of MCP, SCP, third ventricle, and FHs. Automated measurements were compared with those manually performed by an expert radiologist. Finally, these measures were combined to calculate the midbrain to pons area ratio, MR parkinsonism index (MRPI), and MRPI 2.0, which were used to differentiate patients with PSP (n = 71) from those with Parkinson disease (PD) (n = 129). Results Dice coefficients above 0.85 were found for all brain regions when comparing manual and DL-based segmentations. A strong correlation was observed between automated and manual measurements (Spearman ρ > 0.80, P < .001). DL-based measurements showed excellent performance in differentiating patients with PSP from those with PD, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve above 0.92. Conclusion The automated approach successfully segmented and measured the brainstem and ventricular structures. DL-based models may represent a useful approach to support the diagnosis of PSP and potentially other conditions associated with brainstem and ventricular alterations. Keywords: MR Imaging, Brain/Brain Stem, Segmentation, Quantification, Diagnosis, Convolutional Neural Network Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024 See also the commentary by Mohajer in this issue.