人工智能辅助体积各向同性同步交错亮血和黑血检查脑转移瘤。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1007/s00234-024-03454-4
Kazufumi Kikuchi, Osamu Togao, Yoshitomo Kikuchi, Koji Yamashita, Daichi Momosaka, Kazunori Fukasawa, Shunsuke Nishimura, Hiroyuki Toyoda, Makoto Obara, Akio Hiwatashi, Kousei Ishigami
{"title":"人工智能辅助体积各向同性同步交错亮血和黑血检查脑转移瘤。","authors":"Kazufumi Kikuchi, Osamu Togao, Yoshitomo Kikuchi, Koji Yamashita, Daichi Momosaka, Kazunori Fukasawa, Shunsuke Nishimura, Hiroyuki Toyoda, Makoto Obara, Akio Hiwatashi, Kousei Ishigami","doi":"10.1007/s00234-024-03454-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To verify the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted volume isotropic simultaneous interleaved bright-/black-blood examination (AI-VISIBLE) for detecting brain metastases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and the requirement for written informed consent was waived. Forty patients were included: 20 patients with and without brain metastases each. Seven independent observers (three radiology residents and four neuroradiologists) participated in two reading sessions: in the first, brain metastases were detected using VISIBLE only; in the second, the results of the first session were comprehensively evaluated by adding AI-VISIBLE information. Sensitivity, diagnostic performance, and false positives/case were evaluated. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a figure-of-merit (FOM). Sensitivity and false positives/case were evaluated using McNemar and paired t-tests, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The McNemar test revealed a significant difference between VISIBLE with/without AI information (P < 0.0001). Significantly higher sensitivity (94.9 ± 1.7% vs. 88.3 ± 5.1%, P = 0.0028) and FOM (0.983 ± 0.009 vs. 0.972 ± 0.013, P = 0.0063) were achieved using VISIBLE with AI information vs. without. No significant difference was observed in false positives/case with and without AI information (0.23 ± 0.19 vs. 0.18 ± 0.15, P = 0.250). AI-assisted results of radiology residents became comparable to results of neuroradiologists (sensitivity, FOM: 85.9 ± 3.4% vs. 90.0 ± 5.9%, 0.969 ± 0.016 vs. 0.974 ± 0.012 without AI information; 94.8 ± 1.3% vs. 95.0 ± 2.1%, 0.977 ± 0.010 vs. 0.988 ± 0.005 with AI information, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI-VISIBLE improved the sensitivity and performance for diagnosing brain metastases.</p>","PeriodicalId":19422,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence-assisted volume isotropic simultaneous interleaved bright- and black-blood examination for brain metastases.\",\"authors\":\"Kazufumi Kikuchi, Osamu Togao, Yoshitomo Kikuchi, Koji Yamashita, Daichi Momosaka, Kazunori Fukasawa, Shunsuke Nishimura, Hiroyuki Toyoda, Makoto Obara, Akio Hiwatashi, Kousei Ishigami\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00234-024-03454-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To verify the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted volume isotropic simultaneous interleaved bright-/black-blood examination (AI-VISIBLE) for detecting brain metastases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and the requirement for written informed consent was waived. Forty patients were included: 20 patients with and without brain metastases each. Seven independent observers (three radiology residents and four neuroradiologists) participated in two reading sessions: in the first, brain metastases were detected using VISIBLE only; in the second, the results of the first session were comprehensively evaluated by adding AI-VISIBLE information. Sensitivity, diagnostic performance, and false positives/case were evaluated. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a figure-of-merit (FOM). Sensitivity and false positives/case were evaluated using McNemar and paired t-tests, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The McNemar test revealed a significant difference between VISIBLE with/without AI information (P < 0.0001). Significantly higher sensitivity (94.9 ± 1.7% vs. 88.3 ± 5.1%, P = 0.0028) and FOM (0.983 ± 0.009 vs. 0.972 ± 0.013, P = 0.0063) were achieved using VISIBLE with AI information vs. without. No significant difference was observed in false positives/case with and without AI information (0.23 ± 0.19 vs. 0.18 ± 0.15, P = 0.250). AI-assisted results of radiology residents became comparable to results of neuroradiologists (sensitivity, FOM: 85.9 ± 3.4% vs. 90.0 ± 5.9%, 0.969 ± 0.016 vs. 0.974 ± 0.012 without AI information; 94.8 ± 1.3% vs. 95.0 ± 2.1%, 0.977 ± 0.010 vs. 0.988 ± 0.005 with AI information, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI-VISIBLE improved the sensitivity and performance for diagnosing brain metastases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-024-03454-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-024-03454-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:验证人工智能辅助体积各向同性同步交错亮血/黑血检查(AI-VISIBLE)检测脑转移瘤的有效性:这项回顾性研究获得了本院审查委员会的批准,并免除了书面知情同意的要求。共纳入 40 名患者:有脑转移和无脑转移的患者各 20 例。七名独立观察员(三名放射科住院医师和四名神经放射科医师)参加了两次阅片会:第一次阅片会仅使用 VISIBLE 检测脑转移瘤;第二次阅片会通过添加 AI-VISIBLE 信息对第一次阅片会的结果进行综合评估。对灵敏度、诊断性能和假阳性/病例进行了评估。诊断性能是通过权数(FOM)来评估的。灵敏度和假阳性/病例分别采用 McNemar 检验和配对 t 检验进行评估:McNemar 检验显示,有人工智能信息的 VISIBLE 和没有人工智能信息的 VISIBLE 之间存在显著差异(P 结论:有人工智能信息的 VISIBLE 和没有人工智能信息的 VISIBLE 之间存在显著差异):AI-VISIBLE提高了诊断脑转移的灵敏度和性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Artificial intelligence-assisted volume isotropic simultaneous interleaved bright- and black-blood examination for brain metastases.

Purpose: To verify the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted volume isotropic simultaneous interleaved bright-/black-blood examination (AI-VISIBLE) for detecting brain metastases.

Methods: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and the requirement for written informed consent was waived. Forty patients were included: 20 patients with and without brain metastases each. Seven independent observers (three radiology residents and four neuroradiologists) participated in two reading sessions: in the first, brain metastases were detected using VISIBLE only; in the second, the results of the first session were comprehensively evaluated by adding AI-VISIBLE information. Sensitivity, diagnostic performance, and false positives/case were evaluated. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a figure-of-merit (FOM). Sensitivity and false positives/case were evaluated using McNemar and paired t-tests, respectively.

Results: The McNemar test revealed a significant difference between VISIBLE with/without AI information (P < 0.0001). Significantly higher sensitivity (94.9 ± 1.7% vs. 88.3 ± 5.1%, P = 0.0028) and FOM (0.983 ± 0.009 vs. 0.972 ± 0.013, P = 0.0063) were achieved using VISIBLE with AI information vs. without. No significant difference was observed in false positives/case with and without AI information (0.23 ± 0.19 vs. 0.18 ± 0.15, P = 0.250). AI-assisted results of radiology residents became comparable to results of neuroradiologists (sensitivity, FOM: 85.9 ± 3.4% vs. 90.0 ± 5.9%, 0.969 ± 0.016 vs. 0.974 ± 0.012 without AI information; 94.8 ± 1.3% vs. 95.0 ± 2.1%, 0.977 ± 0.010 vs. 0.988 ± 0.005 with AI information, respectively).

Conclusion: AI-VISIBLE improved the sensitivity and performance for diagnosing brain metastases.

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
Neuroradiology
Neuroradiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
214
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroradiology aims to provide state-of-the-art medical and scientific information in the fields of Neuroradiology, Neurosciences, Neurology, Psychiatry, Neurosurgery, and related medical specialities. Neuroradiology as the official Journal of the European Society of Neuroradiology receives submissions from all parts of the world and publishes peer-reviewed original research, comprehensive reviews, educational papers, opinion papers, and short reports on exceptional clinical observations and new technical developments in the field of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention. The journal has subsections for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Advanced Neuroimaging, Paediatric Neuroradiology, Head-Neck-ENT Radiology, Spine Neuroradiology, and for submissions from Japan. Neuroradiology aims to provide new knowledge about and insights into the function and pathology of the human nervous system that may help to better diagnose and treat nervous system diseases. Neuroradiology is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE core practices. Neuroradiology prefers articles that are free of bias, self-critical regarding limitations, transparent and clear in describing study participants, methods, and statistics, and short in presenting results. Before peer-review all submissions are automatically checked by iThenticate to assess for potential overlap in prior publication.
期刊最新文献
Machine learning based classification of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhages using radiomics features. Pineal gland ADC values in children aged 0 to 4 years: normative data and usefulness in the differential diagnosis with trilateral retinoblastoma. MR-Neurography of the facial nerve in parotid tumors: intra-parotid nerve visualization and surgical correlation. A Comparative Study of AI-Based Automated and Manual Postprocessing of Head and Neck CT Angiography: An Independent External Validation with Multi-Vendor and Multi-Center Data. CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of facial and mandibular nerves in the treatment of compound Meige's syndrome.
×
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