下载PDF
{"title":"评估 2022 年 RSNA 颈椎骨折检测竞赛模型在一级创伤中心的性能。","authors":"Zixuan Hu, Markand Patel, Robyn L Ball, Hui Ming Lin, Luciano M Prevedello, Mitra Naseri, Shobhit Mathur, Robert Moreland, Jefferson Wilson, Christopher Witiw, Kristen W Yeom, Qishen Ha, Darragh Hanley, Selim Seferbekov, Hao Chen, Philipp Singer, Christof Henkel, Pascal Pfeiffer, Ian Pan, Harshit Sheoran, Wuqi Li, Adam E Flanders, Felipe C Kitamura, Tyler Richards, Jason Talbott, Ervin Sejdić, Errol Colak","doi":"10.1148/ryai.230550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To evaluate the performance of the top models from the RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection challenge on a clinical test dataset of both noncontrast and contrast-enhanced CT scans acquired at a level I trauma center. Materials and Methods Seven top-performing models in the RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection challenge were retrospectively evaluated on a clinical test set of 1828 CT scans (from 1829 series: 130 positive for fracture, 1699 negative for fracture; 1308 noncontrast, 521 contrast enhanced) from 1779 patients (mean age, 55.8 years ± 22.1 [SD]; 1154 [64.9%] male patients). Scans were acquired without exclusion criteria over 1 year (January-December 2022) from the emergency department of a neurosurgical and level I trauma center. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. False-positive and false-negative cases were further analyzed by a neuroradiologist. Results Although all seven models showed decreased performance on the clinical test set compared with the challenge dataset, the models maintained high performances. On noncontrast CT scans, the models achieved a mean AUC of 0.89 (range: 0.79-0.92), sensitivity of 67.0% (range: 30.9%-80.0%), and specificity of 92.9% (range: 82.1%-99.0%). On contrast-enhanced CT scans, the models had a mean AUC of 0.88 (range: 0.76-0.94), sensitivity of 81.9% (range: 42.7%-100.0%), and specificity of 72.1% (range: 16.4%-92.8%). The models identified 10 fractures missed by radiologists. False-positive cases were more common in contrast-enhanced scans and observed in patients with degenerative changes on noncontrast scans, while false-negative cases were often associated with degenerative changes and osteopenia. Conclusion The winning models from the 2022 RSNA AI Challenge demonstrated a high performance for cervical spine fracture detection on a clinical test dataset, warranting further evaluation for their use as clinical support tools. <b>Keywords:</b> Feature Detection, Supervised Learning, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Genetic Algorithms, CT, Spine, Technology Assessment, Head/Neck <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> © RSNA, 2024 See also commentary by Levi and Politi in this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":29787,"journal":{"name":"Radiology-Artificial Intelligence","volume":" ","pages":"e230550"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11605142/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Performance of Models from the 2022 RSNA Cervical Spine Fracture Detection Competition at a Level I Trauma Center.\",\"authors\":\"Zixuan Hu, Markand Patel, Robyn L Ball, Hui Ming Lin, Luciano M Prevedello, Mitra Naseri, Shobhit Mathur, Robert Moreland, Jefferson Wilson, Christopher Witiw, Kristen W Yeom, Qishen Ha, Darragh Hanley, Selim Seferbekov, Hao Chen, Philipp Singer, Christof Henkel, Pascal Pfeiffer, Ian Pan, Harshit Sheoran, Wuqi Li, Adam E Flanders, Felipe C Kitamura, Tyler Richards, Jason Talbott, Ervin Sejdić, Errol Colak\",\"doi\":\"10.1148/ryai.230550\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Purpose To evaluate the performance of the top models from the RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection challenge on a clinical test dataset of both noncontrast and contrast-enhanced CT scans acquired at a level I trauma center. Materials and Methods Seven top-performing models in the RSNA 2022 Cervical Spine Fracture Detection challenge were retrospectively evaluated on a clinical test set of 1828 CT scans (from 1829 series: 130 positive for fracture, 1699 negative for fracture; 1308 noncontrast, 521 contrast enhanced) from 1779 patients (mean age, 55.8 years ± 22.1 [SD]; 1154 [64.9%] male patients). Scans were acquired without exclusion criteria over 1 year (January-December 2022) from the emergency department of a neurosurgical and level I trauma center. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. False-positive and false-negative cases were further analyzed by a neuroradiologist. Results Although all seven models showed decreased performance on the clinical test set compared with the challenge dataset, the models maintained high performances. On noncontrast CT scans, the models achieved a mean AUC of 0.89 (range: 0.79-0.92), sensitivity of 67.0% (range: 30.9%-80.0%), and specificity of 92.9% (range: 82.1%-99.0%). On contrast-enhanced CT scans, the models had a mean AUC of 0.88 (range: 0.76-0.94), sensitivity of 81.9% (range: 42.7%-100.0%), and specificity of 72.1% (range: 16.4%-92.8%). The models identified 10 fractures missed by radiologists. False-positive cases were more common in contrast-enhanced scans and observed in patients with degenerative changes on noncontrast scans, while false-negative cases were often associated with degenerative changes and osteopenia. Conclusion The winning models from the 2022 RSNA AI Challenge demonstrated a high performance for cervical spine fracture detection on a clinical test dataset, warranting further evaluation for their use as clinical support tools. <b>Keywords:</b> Feature Detection, Supervised Learning, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Genetic Algorithms, CT, Spine, Technology Assessment, Head/Neck <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> © RSNA, 2024 See also commentary by Levi and Politi in this issue.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiology-Artificial Intelligence\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e230550\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11605142/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiology-Artificial Intelligence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.230550\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology-Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.230550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用