4.6 Article

Quantitative Measurement of Pneumothorax Using Artificial Intelligence Management Model and Clinical Application

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081823

Keywords

pneumothorax; artificial intelligence; deep learning; true label

Funding

  1. Chungbuk National University Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed an AI model to estimate the pneumothorax amount on chest radiographs and analyzed the clinical outcomes. The results showed a high accuracy of the AI model, but with some differences compared to the true label.
Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques can be a solution for delayed or misdiagnosed pneumothorax. This study developed, a deep-learning-based AI model to estimate the pneumothorax amount on a chest radiograph and applied it to a treatment algorithm developed by experienced thoracic surgeons. U-net performed semantic segmentation and classification of pneumothorax and non-pneumothorax areas. The pneumothorax amount was measured using chest computed tomography (volume ratio, gold standard) and chest radiographs (area ratio, true label) and calculated using the AI model (area ratio, predicted label). Each value was compared and analyzed based on clinical outcomes. The study included 96 patients, of which 67 comprised the training set and the others the test set. The AI model showed an accuracy of 97.8%, sensitivity of 69.2%, a negative predictive value of 99.1%, and a dice similarity coefficient of 61.8%. In the test set, the average amount of pneumothorax was 15%, 16%, and 13% in the gold standard, predicted, and true labels, respectively. The predicted label was not significantly different from the gold standard (p = 0.11) but inferior to the true label (difference in MAE: 3.03%). The amount of pneumothorax in thoracostomy patients was 21.6% in predicted cases and 18.5% in true cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available