Search

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of trained technologists vis-à-vis radiologists for volumetric pancreas segmentation and to assess the impact of supplementary training on their performance. Methods: In this IRB-approved study, 22 technologists were trained in pancreas segmentation on portal venous phase CT through radiologist-led interactive videoconferencing sessions based on an image-rich curriculum. Technologists segmented pancreas in 188 CTs using freehand tools on custom image-viewing software. Subsequent supplementary training included multimedia videos focused on common errors, which were followed by second batch of 159 segmentations. Two radiologists reviewed all cases and corrected inaccurate segmentations. Technologists' segmentations were compared against radiologists' segmentations using Dice-Sorenson coefficient (DSC), Jaccard coefficient (JC), and Bland–Altman analysis. Results: Corrections were made in 71 (38%) cases from first batch [26 (37%) oversegmentations and 45 (63%) undersegmentations] and in 77 (48%) cases from second batch [12 (16%) oversegmentations and 65 (84%) undersegmentations]. DSC, JC, false positive (FP), and false negative (FN) [mean (SD)] in first versus second batches were 0.63 (0.15) versus 0.63 (0.16), 0.48 (0.15) versus 0.48 (0.15), 0.29 (0.21) versus 0.21 (0.10), and 0.36 (0.20) versus 0.43 (0.19), respectively. Differences were not significant (p > 0.05). However, range of mean pancreatic volume difference reduced in the second batch [− 2.74 cc (min − 92.96 cc, max 87.47 cc) versus − 23.57 cc (min − 77.32, max 30.19)]. Conclusion: Trained technologists could perform volumetric pancreas segmentation with reasonable accuracy despite its complexity. Supplementary training further reduced range of volume difference in segmentations. Investment into training technologists could augment and accelerate development of body imaging datasets for AI applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During COVID-19 lockdown, non-urgent medical procedures were suspended. Grade of urgency of electroencephalography (EEG) may vary according to the clinical indication, setting, and status of infection of SARS-CoV-2 virus. "Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology" (SINC), "Italian League Against Epilepsy" (LICE), and the "Italian Association of Neurophysiology Technologists" (AITN) aimed to provide clinical and technical recommendation for EEG indications and recording standards in this pandemic era. Methods: Presidents of SINC, LICE, and AITN endorsed three members per each society to formulate recommendations: classification of the degree of urgency of EEG clinical indications, management and behavior of physicians and neurophysiology technologists, hygiene and personal protection standards, and use of technical equipment. Results: Scientific societies endorsed a paper conveying the recommendation for EEG execution in accordance with clinical urgency, setting (inpatients/outpatients), status of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection (positive, negative and uncertain), and phase of governmental restrictions (phase 1 and 2). Briefly, in phase 1, EEG was recommended only for those acute/subacute neurological symptoms where EEG is necessary for diagnosis, prognosis, or therapy. Outpatient examinations should be avoided in phase 1, while they should be recommended in urgent cases in phase 2 when they could prevent an emergency room access. Reduction of staff contacts must be encouraged through rescheduling job shifts. The use of disposable electrodes and dedicated EEG devices for COVID-19-positive patients are recommended. Conclusions: During the different phases of COVID-19 pandemic, the EEG should be reserved for patients really benefiting from its execution in terms of diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and avoidance of emergency room access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]