4.7 Article

Added value of an artificial intelligence algorithm in reducing the number of missed incidental acute pulmonary embolism in routine portal venous phase chest CT

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10029-z

Keywords

Computed tomography; Pulmonary embolism; Retrospective studies; Artificial intelligence; Algorithms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the incremental value of artificial intelligence (AI) compared to radiologists alone in diagnosing incidental acute pulmonary embolism (PE) on routine chest CT scans. CT scans of 3089 patients were retrospectively analyzed using an AI algorithm. The AI algorithm showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to the initial report, detecting 25 cases of initially unreported PE.
ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the incremental value of artificial intelligence (AI) compared to the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists alone in detecting incidental acute pulmonary embolism (PE) on routine portal venous contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography (CT).MethodsCTs of 3089 consecutive patients referred to the radiology department for a routine contrast-enhanced chest CT between 27-5-2020 and 31-12-2020, were retrospectively analysed by a CE-certified and FDA-approved AI algorithm. The diagnostic performance of the AI was compared to the initial report. To determine the reference standard, discordant findings were independently evaluated by two readers. In case of disagreement, another experienced cardiothoracic radiologist with knowledge of the initial report and the AI output adjudicated.ResultsThe prevalence of acute incidental PE in the reference standard was 2.2% (67 of 3089 patients). In 25 cases, AI detected initially unreported PE. This included three cases concerning central/lobar PE. Sensitivity of the AI algorithm was significantly higher than the outcome of the initial report (respectively 95.5% vs. 62.7%, p < 0.001), whereas specificity was very high for both (respectively 99.6% vs 99.9%, p = 0.012). The AI algorithm only showed a slightly higher amount of false-positive findings (11 vs. 2), resulting in a significantly lower PPV (85.3% vs. 95.5%, p = 0.047).ConclusionThe AI algorithm showed high diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing incidental PE, detecting an additional 25 cases of initially unreported PE, accounting for 37.3% of all positive 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available