Search

Substantial endeavors have been recently dedicated to developing artificial intelligence (AI) solutions, especially deep learning-based, tailored to enhance radiological procedures, in particular algorithms designed to minimize radiation exposure and enhance image clarity. Thus, not only better diagnostic accuracy but also reduced potential harm to patients was pursued, thereby exemplifying the intersection of technological innovation and the highest standards of patient care. We provide herein an overview of recent AI developments in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Major AI results in CT regard: optimization of patient positioning, scan range selection (avoiding "overscanning"), and choice of technical parameters; reduction of the amount of injected contrast agent and injection flow rate (also avoiding extravasation); faster and better image reconstruction reducing noise level and artifacts. Major AI results in MRI regard: reconstruction of undersampled images; artifact removal, including those derived from unintentional patient's (or fetal) movement or from heart motion; up to 80–90% reduction of GBCA dose. Challenges include limited generalizability, lack of external validation, insufficient explainability of models, and opacity of decision-making. Developing explainable AI algorithms that provide transparent and interpretable outputs is essential to enable seamless AI integration into CT and MRI practice. Relevance statement: This review highlights how AI-driven advancements in CT and MRI improve image quality and enhance patient safety by leveraging AI solutions for dose reduction, contrast optimization, noise reduction, and efficient image reconstruction, paving the way for safer, faster, and more accurate diagnostic imaging practices. Key Points: Advancements in AI are revolutionizing the way radiological images are acquired, reconstructed, and interpreted. AI algorithms can assist in optimizing radiation doses, reducing scan times, and enhancing image quality. AI techniques are paving the way for a future of more efficient, accurate, and safe medical imaging examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We characterize the associations of total cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) burden with brain structure, trajectories of vascular risk factors, and cognitive functions in mid-to-late life. Participants were 623 community-dwelling adults from the Whitehall II Imaging Sub-study with multi-modal MRI (mean age 69.96, SD = 5.18, 79% men). We used linear mixed-effects models to investigate associations of SVD burden with up to 25-year retrospective trajectories of vascular risk and cognitive performance. General linear modelling was used to investigate concurrent associations with grey matter (GM) density and white matter (WM) microstructure, and whether these associations were modified by cognitive status (Montreal Cognitive Asessment [MoCA] scores of < 26 vs. ≥ 26). Severe SVD burden in older age was associated with higher mean arterial pressure throughout midlife (β = 3.36, 95% CI [0.42-6.30]), and faster cognitive decline in letter fluency (β = −0.07, 95% CI [−0.13–−0.01]), and verbal reasoning (β = −0.05, 95% CI [−0.11–−0.001]). Moreover, SVD burden was related to lower GM volumes in 9.7% of total GM, and widespread WM microstructural decline (FWE-corrected p < 0.05). The latter association was most pronounced in individuals who demonstrated cognitive impairments on MoCA (MoCA < 26; F3,608 = 2.14, p = 0.007). These findings highlight the importance of managing midlife vascular health to preserve brain structure and cognitive function in old age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although white matter hyperintensities (WMH) volumetric assessment is now customary in research studies, inconsistent WMH measures among homogenous populations may prevent the clinical usability of this biomarker. Purpose: To determine whether a point estimate and reference standard for WMH volume in the healthy aging population could be determined. Study Type: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Population: In all, 9716 adult subjects from 38 studies reporting WMH volume were retrieved following a systematic search on EMBASE. Field Strength/Sequence: 1.0T, 1.5T, or 3.0T/fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) and/or proton density/T2‐weighted fast spin echo sequences or gradient echo T1‐weighted sequences. Assessment: After a literature search, sample size, demographics, magnetic field strength, MRI sequences, level of automation in WMH assessment, study population, and WMH volume were extracted. Statistical Tests: The pooled WMH volume with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the random‐effect model. The I2 statistic was calculated as a measure of heterogeneity across studies. Meta‐regression analysis of WMH volume on age was performed. Results: Of the 38 studies analyzed, 17 reported WMH volume as the mean and standard deviation (SD) and were included in the meta‐analysis. Mean and SD of age was 66.11 ± 10.92 years (percentage of men 50.45% ± 21.48%). Heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 99%). The pooled WMH volume was 4.70 cm3 (95% CI: 3.88–5.53 cm3). At meta‐regression analysis, WMH volume was positively associated with subjects' age (β = 0.358 cm3 per year, P < 0.05, R2 = 0.27). Data Conclusion: The lack of standardization in the definition of WMH together with the high technical variability in assessment may explain a large component of the observed heterogeneity. Currently, volumes of WMH in healthy subjects are not comparable between studies and an estimate and reference interval could not be determined. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report the results of a survey conducted among ESR members in November and December 2018, asking for expectations about artificial intelligence (AI) in 5–10 years. Of 24,000 ESR members contacted, 675 (2.8%) completed the survey, 454 males (67%), 555 (82%) working at academic/public hospitals. AI impact was mostly expected (≥ 30% of responders) on breast, oncologic, thoracic, and neuro imaging, mainly involving mammography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance. Responders foresee AI impact on: job opportunities (375/675, 56%), 218/375 (58%) expecting increase, 157/375 (42%) reduction; reporting workload (504/675, 75%), 256/504 (51%) expecting reduction, 248/504 (49%) increase; radiologist's profile, becoming more clinical (364/675, 54%) and more subspecialised (283/675, 42%). For 374/675 responders (55%) AI-only reports would be not accepted by patients, for 79/675 (12%) accepted, for 222/675 (33%) it is too early to answer. For 275/675 responders (41%) AI will make the radiologist-patient relation more interactive, for 140/675 (21%) more impersonal, for 259/675 (38%) unchanged. If AI allows time saving, radiologists should interact more with clinicians (437/675, 65%) and/or patients (322/675, 48%). For all responders, involvement in AI-projects is welcome, with different roles: supervision (434/675, 64%), task definition (359/675, 53%), image labelling (197/675, 29%). Of 675 responders, 321 (48%) do not currently use AI, 138 (20%) use AI, 205 (30%) are planning to do it. According to 277/675 responders (41%), radiologists will take responsibility for AI outcome, while 277/675 (41%) suggest shared responsibility with other professionals. To summarise, responders showed a general favourable attitude towards AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]