Search

Purpose: To develop and assess the utility of synthetic dual-energy CT (sDECT) images generated from single-energy CT (SECT) using two state-of-the-art generative adversarial network (GAN) architectures for artificial intelligence-based image translation. Methods: In this retrospective study, 734 patients (389F; 62.8 years ± 14.9) who underwent enhanced DECT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis between January 2018 and June 2019 were included. Using 70-keV as the input images (n = 141,009) and 50-keV, iodine, and virtual unenhanced (VUE) images as outputs, separate models were trained using Pix2PixHD and CycleGAN. Model performance on the test set (n = 17,839) was evaluated using mean squared error, structural similarity index, and peak signal-to-noise ratio. To objectively test the utility of these models, synthetic iodine material density and 50-keV images were generated from SECT images of 16 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding performed at another institution. The conspicuity of gastrointestinal bleeding using sDECT was compared to portal venous phase SECT. Synthetic VUE images were generated from 37 patients who underwent a CT urogram at another institution and model performance was compared to true unenhanced images. Results: sDECT from both Pix2PixHD and CycleGAN were qualitatively indistinguishable from true DECT by a board-certified radiologist (avg accuracy 64.5%). Pix2PixHD had better quantitative performance compared to CycleGAN (e.g., structural similarity index for iodine: 87% vs. 46%, p-value < 0.001). sDECT using Pix2PixHD showed increased bleeding conspicuity for gastrointestinal bleeding and better removal of iodine on synthetic VUE compared to CycleGAN. Conclusions: sDECT from SECT using Pix2PixHD may afford some of the advantages of DECT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the expert-level performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models for various medical imaging tasks, real-world performance failures with disparate outputs for various subgroups limit the usefulness of AI in improving patients' lives. Many definitions of fairness have been proposed, with discussions of various tensions that arise in the choice of an appropriate metric to use to evaluate bias; for example, should one aim for individual or group fairness? One central observation is that AI models apply "shortcut learning" whereby spurious features (such as chest tubes and portable radiographic markers on intensive care unit chest radiography) on medical images are used for prediction instead of identifying true pathology. Moreover, AI has been shown to have a remarkable ability to detect protected attributes of age, sex, and race, while the same models demonstrate bias against historically underserved subgroups of age, sex, and race in disease diagnosis. Therefore, an AI model may take shortcut predictions from these correlations and subsequently generate an outcome that is biased toward certain subgroups even when protected attributes are not explicitly used as inputs into the model. As a result, these subgroups became nonprivileged subgroups. In this review, the authors discuss the various types of bias from shortcut learning that may occur at different phases of AI model development, including data bias, modeling bias, and inference bias. The authors thereafter summarize various tool kits that can be used to evaluate and mitigate bias and note that these have largely been applied to nonmedical domains and require more evaluation for medical AI. The authors then summarize current techniques for mitigating bias from preprocessing (data-centric solutions) and during model development (computational solutions) and postprocessing (recalibration of learning). Ongoing legal changes where the use of a biased model will be penalized highlight the necessity of understanding, detecting, and mitigating biases from shortcut learning and will require diverse research teams looking at the whole AI pipeline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Selection of appropriate adjuvant therapy to ultimately reduce the risk of breast cancer (BC) recurrence is a challenge for medical oncologists. Several automated risk prediction models have been developed using retrospective clinical data and have evolved significantly over the years in terms of predictors of recurrence, data usage, and predictive techniques (statistical/machine learning [ML]). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic literature review of the aforementioned statistical and ML models published between January 2008 and December 2022 through searching five digital databases—PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The comprehensive search yielded a total of 163 papers and after a screening process focusing on papers that dealt exclusively with statistical/ML methods, only 23 papers were deemed appropriate for further analysis. We benchmarked the studies on the basis of development, evaluation metrics, and validation strategy with an added emphasis on racial diversity of patients included in the studies. RESULTS: In total, 30.4% of the included studies use statistical techniques, while 69.6% are ML-based. Among these, traditional ML models (support vector machines, decision tree, logistic regression, and naïve Bayes) are the most frequently used (26.1%) along with deep learning (26.1%). Deep learning and ensemble learning provide the most accurate predictions (AUC = 0.94 each). CONCLUSION: ML-based prediction models exhibit outstanding performance, yet their practical applicability might be hindered by limited interpretability and reduced generalization. Moreover, predictive models for BC recurrence often focus on limited variables related to tumor, treatment, molecular, and clinical features. Imbalanced classes and the lack of open-source data sets impede model development and validation. Furthermore, existing models predominantly overlook African and Middle Eastern populations, as they are trained and validated mainly on Caucasian and Asian patients. We traced the advancement of breast cancer recurrence risk prediction models published between 2008 and 2022 in a systematic way that includes both statistical and artificial intelligence models. This review article serves as a guide for practitioners, offering valuable insights on how to effectively incorporate predictive tools into clinical practice. Moreover, it provides researchers with valuable feedback and recommendations to further improve and refine the predictive models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Echocardiography is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. The use and application of artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly expanding field in medicine to improve consistency and reduce interobserver variability. AI can be successfully applied to echocardiography in addressing variance during image acquisition and interpretation. Furthermore, AI and machine learning can aid in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. In the realm of echocardiography, accurate interpretation is largely dependent on the subjective knowledge of the operator. Echocardiography is burdened by the high dependence on the level of experience of the operator, to a greater extent than other imaging modalities like computed tomography, nuclear imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging. AI technologies offer new opportunities for echocardiography to produce accurate, automated, and more consistent interpretations. This review discusses machine learning as a subfield within AI in relation to image interpretation and how machine learning can improve the diagnostic performance of echocardiography. This review also explores the published literature outlining the value of AI and its potential to improve patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the knee is the preferred method for diagnosing knee injuries. However, interpretation of knee MRI is time-intensive and subject to diagnostic error and variability. An automated system for interpreting knee MRI could prioritize high-risk patients and assist clinicians in making diagnoses. Deep learning methods, in being able to automatically learn layers of features, are well suited for modeling the complex relationships between medical images and their interpretations. In this study we developed a deep learning model for detecting general abnormalities and specific diagnoses (anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] tears and meniscal tears) on knee MRI exams. We then measured the effect of providing the model's predictions to clinical experts during interpretation.Methods and Findings: Our dataset consisted of 1,370 knee MRI exams performed at Stanford University Medical Center between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2012 (mean age 38.0 years; 569 [41.5%] female patients). The majority vote of 3 musculoskeletal radiologists established reference standard labels on an internal validation set of 120 exams. We developed MRNet, a convolutional neural network for classifying MRI series and combined predictions from 3 series per exam using logistic regression. In detecting abnormalities, ACL tears, and meniscal tears, this model achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.937 (95% CI 0.895, 0.980), 0.965 (95% CI 0.938, 0.993), and 0.847 (95% CI 0.780, 0.914), respectively, on the internal validation set. We also obtained a public dataset of 917 exams with sagittal T1-weighted series and labels for ACL injury from Clinical Hospital Centre Rijeka, Croatia. On the external validation set of 183 exams, the MRNet trained on Stanford sagittal T2-weighted series achieved an AUC of 0.824 (95% CI 0.757, 0.892) in the detection of ACL injuries with no additional training, while an MRNet trained on the rest of the external data achieved an AUC of 0.911 (95% CI 0.864, 0.958). We additionally measured the specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of 9 clinical experts (7 board-certified general radiologists and 2 orthopedic surgeons) on the internal validation set both with and without model assistance. Using a 2-sided Pearson's chi-squared test with adjustment for multiple comparisons, we found no significant differences between the performance of the model and that of unassisted general radiologists in detecting abnormalities. General radiologists achieved significantly higher sensitivity in detecting ACL tears (p-value = 0.002; q-value = 0.019) and significantly higher specificity in detecting meniscal tears (p-value = 0.003; q-value = 0.019). Using a 1-tailed t test on the change in performance metrics, we found that providing model predictions significantly increased clinical experts' specificity in identifying ACL tears (p-value < 0.001; q-value = 0.006). The primary limitations of our study include lack of surgical ground truth and the small size of the panel of clinical experts.Conclusions: Our deep learning model can rapidly generate accurate clinical pathology classifications of knee MRI exams from both internal and external datasets. Moreover, our results support the assertion that deep learning models can improve the performance of clinical experts during medical imaging interpretation. Further research is needed to validate the model prospectively and to determine its utility in the clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chest radiograph interpretation is critical for the detection of thoracic diseases, including tuberculosis and lung cancer, which affect millions of people worldwide each year. This time-consuming task typically requires expert radiologists to read the images, leading to fatigue-based diagnostic error and lack of diagnostic expertise in areas of the world where radiologists are not available. Recently, deep learning approaches have been able to achieve expert-level performance in medical image interpretation tasks, powered by large network architectures and fueled by the emergence of large labeled datasets. The purpose of this study is to investigate the performance of a deep learning algorithm on the detection of pathologies in chest radiographs compared with practicing radiologists.Methods and Findings: We developed CheXNeXt, a convolutional neural network to concurrently detect the presence of 14 different pathologies, including pneumonia, pleural effusion, pulmonary masses, and nodules in frontal-view chest radiographs. CheXNeXt was trained and internally validated on the ChestX-ray8 dataset, with a held-out validation set consisting of 420 images, sampled to contain at least 50 cases of each of the original pathology labels. On this validation set, the majority vote of a panel of 3 board-certified cardiothoracic specialist radiologists served as reference standard. We compared CheXNeXt's discriminative performance on the validation set to the performance of 9 radiologists using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The radiologists included 6 board-certified radiologists (average experience 12 years, range 4-28 years) and 3 senior radiology residents, from 3 academic institutions. We found that CheXNeXt achieved radiologist-level performance on 11 pathologies and did not achieve radiologist-level performance on 3 pathologies. The radiologists achieved statistically significantly higher AUC performance on cardiomegaly, emphysema, and hiatal hernia, with AUCs of 0.888 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.863-0.910), 0.911 (95% CI 0.866-0.947), and 0.985 (95% CI 0.974-0.991), respectively, whereas CheXNeXt's AUCs were 0.831 (95% CI 0.790-0.870), 0.704 (95% CI 0.567-0.833), and 0.851 (95% CI 0.785-0.909), respectively. CheXNeXt performed better than radiologists in detecting atelectasis, with an AUC of 0.862 (95% CI 0.825-0.895), statistically significantly higher than radiologists' AUC of 0.808 (95% CI 0.777-0.838); there were no statistically significant differences in AUCs for the other 10 pathologies. The average time to interpret the 420 images in the validation set was substantially longer for the radiologists (240 minutes) than for CheXNeXt (1.5 minutes). The main limitations of our study are that neither CheXNeXt nor the radiologists were permitted to use patient history or review prior examinations and that evaluation was limited to a dataset from a single institution.Conclusions: In this study, we developed and validated a deep learning algorithm that classified clinically important abnormalities in chest radiographs at a performance level comparable to practicing radiologists. Once tested prospectively in clinical settings, the algorithm could have the potential to expand patient access to chest radiograph diagnostics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) AI may enable an ideal symbiosis of human experts and AI models, harnessing the advantages of both while at the same time overcoming their respective limitations. The purpose of this study was to investigate a novel collective intelligence technology designed to amplify the diagnostic accuracy of networked human groups by forming real-time systems modeled on biological swarms. Using small groups of radiologists, the swarm-based technology was applied to the diagnosis of pneumonia on chest radiographs and compared against human experts alone, as well as two state-of-the-art deep learning AI models. Our work demonstrates that both the swarm-based technology and deep-learning technology achieved superior diagnostic accuracy than the human experts alone. Our work further demonstrates that when used in combination, the swarm-based technology and deep-learning technology outperformed either method alone. The superior diagnostic accuracy of the combined HITL AI solution compared to radiologists and AI alone has broad implications for the surging clinical AI deployment and implementation strategies in future practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]