人工读取与人工智能生成的下肢影像测量结果对腿长和角度对齐的可靠性评估

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Clinical Imaging Pub Date : 2024-07-14 DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110233
{"title":"人工读取与人工智能生成的下肢影像测量结果对腿长和角度对齐的可靠性评估","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Leg length discrepancy (LLD) and lower extremity malalignment can lead to pain and osteoarthritis. A variety of radiographic parameters are used to assess LLD and alignment. A 510(k) FDA approved artificial intelligence (AI) software locates landmarks on full leg standing radiographs and performs several measurements. The objective of this study was to assess the reliability of this AI tool compared to three manual readers.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A sample of 320 legs was used. Three readers' measurements were compared to AI output for hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg-length-discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical-axis-deviation (MAD). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to track performance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>AI output was successfully produced for 272/320 legs in the study. The reader versus AI pairwise ICCs were mostly in the excellent range: 12/13, 12/13, and 9/13 variables were in the excellent range (ICC &gt; 0.75) for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was better agreement for leg length, femur length, tibia length, LLD, and HKA than for other variables. The median reading times for the three readers and AI were 250, 282, 236, and 38 s, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study showed that AI-based software provides reliable assessment of LLD and lower extremity alignment with substantial time savings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50680,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability assessment of leg length and angular alignment on manual reads versus artificial intelligence-generated lower extremity radiographic measurements\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Leg length discrepancy (LLD) and lower extremity malalignment can lead to pain and osteoarthritis. A variety of radiographic parameters are used to assess LLD and alignment. A 510(k) FDA approved artificial intelligence (AI) software locates landmarks on full leg standing radiographs and performs several measurements. The objective of this study was to assess the reliability of this AI tool compared to three manual readers.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A sample of 320 legs was used. Three readers' measurements were compared to AI output for hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg-length-discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical-axis-deviation (MAD). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to track performance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>AI output was successfully produced for 272/320 legs in the study. The reader versus AI pairwise ICCs were mostly in the excellent range: 12/13, 12/13, and 9/13 variables were in the excellent range (ICC &gt; 0.75) for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was better agreement for leg length, femur length, tibia length, LLD, and HKA than for other variables. The median reading times for the three readers and AI were 250, 282, 236, and 38 s, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study showed that AI-based software provides reliable assessment of LLD and lower extremity alignment with substantial time savings.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707124001633\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707124001633","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的腿长不一致(LLD)和下肢对位不良可导致疼痛和骨关节炎。各种影像学参数被用于评估腿长偏差和对齐情况。美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的 510(k) 人工智能(AI)软件可在全腿站立X光片上定位地标,并进行多项测量。本研究的目的是评估该人工智能工具与三位人工读片器相比的可靠性。将三位读片员的测量结果与人工智能输出结果进行比较,包括髋-膝角度(HKA)、解剖-胫骨-股骨角度(aTFA)、解剖-机械轴角度(AMA)、关节线-会聚角度(JLCA)、机械-外侧-近端-股骨角度(mLPFA)、机械外侧-远侧-股骨角 (mLDFA)、机械内侧-近侧-胫骨角 (mMPTA)、机械外侧-远侧-胫骨角 (mLDTA)、股骨长度、胫骨长度、腿全长、腿长差异 (LLD) 和机械轴偏差 (MAD)。采用类内相关系数(ICC)和布兰-阿尔特曼分析法跟踪分析结果。阅读器与人工智能之间的成对 ICC 大多处于优秀范围:读者 1、2 和 3 分别有 12/13、12/13 和 9/13 个变量处于优秀范围(ICC > 0.75)。与其他变量相比,腿长、股骨长、胫骨长、LLD 和 HKA 的一致性更好。三名读者和人工智能的读取时间中位数分别为 250 秒、282 秒、236 秒和 38 秒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reliability assessment of leg length and angular alignment on manual reads versus artificial intelligence-generated lower extremity radiographic measurements

Purpose

Leg length discrepancy (LLD) and lower extremity malalignment can lead to pain and osteoarthritis. A variety of radiographic parameters are used to assess LLD and alignment. A 510(k) FDA approved artificial intelligence (AI) software locates landmarks on full leg standing radiographs and performs several measurements. The objective of this study was to assess the reliability of this AI tool compared to three manual readers.

Methods

A sample of 320 legs was used. Three readers' measurements were compared to AI output for hip-knee-angle (HKA), anatomical-tibiofemoral angle (aTFA), anatomical-mechanical-axis angle (AMA), joint-line-convergence angle (JLCA), mechanical-lateral-proximal-femur-angle (mLPFA), mechanical-lateral-distal-femur-angle (mLDFA), mechanical-medial-proximal-tibia-angle (mMPTA), mechanical-lateral-distal-tibia- angle (mLDTA), femur length, tibia length, full leg length, leg-length-discrepancy (LLD), and mechanical-axis-deviation (MAD). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to track performance.

Results

AI output was successfully produced for 272/320 legs in the study. The reader versus AI pairwise ICCs were mostly in the excellent range: 12/13, 12/13, and 9/13 variables were in the excellent range (ICC > 0.75) for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. There was better agreement for leg length, femur length, tibia length, LLD, and HKA than for other variables. The median reading times for the three readers and AI were 250, 282, 236, and 38 s, respectively.

Conclusion

This study showed that AI-based software provides reliable assessment of LLD and lower extremity alignment with substantial time savings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Imaging
Clinical Imaging 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
265
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: The mission of Clinical Imaging is to publish, in a timely manner, the very best radiology research from the United States and around the world with special attention to the impact of medical imaging on patient care. The journal''s publications cover all imaging modalities, radiology issues related to patients, policy and practice improvements, and clinically-oriented imaging physics and informatics. The journal is a valuable resource for practicing radiologists, radiologists-in-training and other clinicians with an interest in imaging. Papers are carefully peer-reviewed and selected by our experienced subject editors who are leading experts spanning the range of imaging sub-specialties, which include: -Body Imaging- Breast Imaging- Cardiothoracic Imaging- Imaging Physics and Informatics- Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine- Musculoskeletal and Emergency Imaging- Neuroradiology- Practice, Policy & Education- Pediatric Imaging- Vascular and Interventional Radiology
期刊最新文献
Women in Radiology Education (WIRED): An actionable step towards closing the gender gap in radiology. Contents Heart lung axis in acute pulmonary embolism: Role of CT in risk stratification Clinical experience on the limited role of ultrasound for breast cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations carriers aged 30–39 years Factors affecting mammogram breast cancer surveillance effectiveness in the ipsilateral and contralateral breast
×
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