Search

Abstract To evaluate the diagnostic performance of our deep learning (DL) model of COVID-19 and investigate whether the diagnostic performance of radiologists was improved by referring to our model. Our datasets contained chest X-rays (CXRs) for the following three categories: normal (NORMAL), non-COVID-19 pneumonia (PNEUMONIA), and COVID-19 pneumonia (COVID). We used two public datasets and private dataset collected from eight hospitals for the development and external validation of our DL model (26,393 CXRs). Eight radiologists performed two reading sessions: one session was performed with reference to CXRs only, and the other was performed with reference to both CXRs and the results of the DL model. The evaluation metrics for the reading session were accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). The accuracy of our DL model was 0.733, and that of the eight radiologists without DL was 0.696 ± 0.031. There was a significant difference in AUC between the radiologists with and without DL for COVID versus NORMAL or PNEUMONIA (p = 0.0038). Our DL model alone showed better diagnostic performance than that of most radiologists. In addition, our model significantly improved the diagnostic performance of radiologists for COVID versus NORMAL or PNEUMONIA.

Abstract This retrospective study aimed to develop and validate a deep learning model for the classification of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, non-COVID-19 pneumonia, and the healthy using chest X-ray (CXR) images. One private and two public datasets of CXR images were included. The private dataset included CXR from six hospitals. A total of 14,258 and 11,253 CXR images were included in the 2 public datasets and 455 in the private dataset. A deep learning model based on EfficientNet with noisy student was constructed using the three datasets. The test set of 150 CXR images in the private dataset were evaluated by the deep learning model and six radiologists. Three-category classification accuracy and class-wise area under the curve (AUC) for each of the COVID-19 pneumonia, non-COVID-19 pneumonia, and healthy were calculated. Consensus of the six radiologists was used for calculating class-wise AUC. The three-category classification accuracy of our model was 0.8667, and those of the six radiologists ranged from 0.5667 to 0.7733. For our model and the consensus of the six radiologists, the class-wise AUC of the healthy, non-COVID-19 pneumonia, and COVID-19 pneumonia were 0.9912, 0.9492, and 0.9752 and 0.9656, 0.8654, and 0.8740, respectively. Difference of the class-wise AUC between our model and the consensus of the six radiologists was statistically significant for COVID-19 pneumonia (p value = 0.001334). Thus, an accurate model of deep learning for the three-category classification could be constructed; the diagnostic performance of our model was significantly better than that of the consensus interpretation by the six radiologists for COVID-19 pneumonia.

Abstract To determine whether temporal subtraction (TS) CT obtained with non-rigid image registration improves detection of various bone metastases during serial clinical follow-up examinations by numerous radiologists. Six board-certified radiologists retrospectively scrutinized CT images for patients with history of malignancy sequentially. These radiologists selected 50 positive and 50 negative subjects with and without bone metastases, respectively. Furthermore, for each subject, they selected a pair of previous and current CT images satisfying predefined criteria by consensus. Previous images were non-rigidly transformed to match current images and subtracted from current images to automatically generate TS images. Subsequently, 18 radiologists independently interpreted the 100 CT image pairs to identify bone metastases, both without and with TS images, with each interpretation separated from the other by an interval of at least 30 days. Jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) analysis was conducted to assess observer performance. Compared with interpretation without TS images, interpretation with TS images was associated with a significantly higher mean figure of merit (0.710 vs. 0.658; JAFROC analysis, P = 0.0027). Mean sensitivity at lesion-based was significantly higher for interpretation with TS compared with that without TS (46.1% vs. 33.9%; P = 0.003). Mean false positive count per subject was also significantly higher for interpretation with TS than for that without TS (0.28 vs. 0.15; P