4.7 Article

Automated detection of pulmonary embolism in CT pulmonary angiograms using an AI-powered algorithm

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 6545-6553

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06998-0

关键词

Pulmonary embolism; Computed tomography angiography; Artificial intelligence; Computer-assisted image processing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To evaluate the performance of an AI-powered algorithm for the automatic detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) on chest computed tomography pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) on a large dataset. Methods We retrospectively identified all CTPAs conducted at our institution in 2017 (n= 1499). Exams with clinical questions other than PE were excluded from the analysis (n= 34). The remaining exams were classified into positive (n= 232) and negative (n= 1233) for PE based on the final written reports, which defined the reference standard. The fully anonymized 1-mm series in soft tissue reconstruction served as input for the PE detection prototype algorithm that was based on a deep convolutional neural network comprising a Resnet architecture. It was trained and validated on 28,000 CTPAs acquired at other institutions. The result series were reviewed using a web-based feedback platform. Measures of diagnostic performance were calculated on a per patient and a per finding level. Results The algorithm correctly identified 215 of 232 exams positive for pulmonary embolism (sensitivity 92.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 88.3-95.5%) and 1178 of 1233 exams negative for pulmonary embolism (specificity 95.5%; 95% CI 94.2-96.6%). On a per finding level, 1174 of 1352 findings marked as embolus by the algorithm were true emboli. Most of the false positive findings were due to contrast agent-related flow artifacts, pulmonary veins, and lymph nodes. Conclusion The AI prototype algorithm we tested has a high degree of diagnostic accuracy for the detection of PE on CTPAs. Sensitivity and specificity are balanced, which is a prerequisite for its clinical usefulness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据