Cargando…
Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies
BACKGROUND: Highly accurate detection of intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) on head computed tomography (HCT) scans can prove challenging at high-volume centers. This study aimed to determine the number of additional ICHs detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm and to evaluate reasons for...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8629230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34843559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260560 |
_version_ | 1784607160609538048 |
---|---|
author | Kundisch, Almut Hönning, Alexander Mutze, Sven Kreissl, Lutz Spohn, Frederik Lemcke, Johannes Sitz, Maximilian Sparenberg, Paul Goelz, Leonie |
author_facet | Kundisch, Almut Hönning, Alexander Mutze, Sven Kreissl, Lutz Spohn, Frederik Lemcke, Johannes Sitz, Maximilian Sparenberg, Paul Goelz, Leonie |
author_sort | Kundisch, Almut |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Highly accurate detection of intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) on head computed tomography (HCT) scans can prove challenging at high-volume centers. This study aimed to determine the number of additional ICHs detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm and to evaluate reasons for erroneous results at a level I trauma center with teleradiology services. METHODS: In a retrospective multi-center cohort study, consecutive emergency non-contrast HCT scans were analyzed by a commercially available ICH detection software (AIDOC, Tel Aviv, Israel). Discrepancies between AI analysis and initial radiology report (RR) were reviewed by a blinded neuroradiologist to determine the number of additional ICHs detected and evaluate reasons leading to errors. RESULTS: 4946 HCT (05/2020-09/2020) from 18 hospitals were included in the analysis. 205 reports (4.1%) were classified as hemorrhages by both radiology report and AI. Out of a total of 162 (3.3%) discrepant reports, 62 were confirmed as hemorrhages by the reference neuroradiologist. 33 ICHs were identified exclusively via RRs. The AI algorithm detected an additional 29 instances of ICH, missed 12.4% of ICH and overcalled 1.9%; RRs missed 10.9% of ICHs and overcalled 0.2%. Many of the ICHs missed by the AI algorithm were located in the subarachnoid space (42.4%) and under the calvaria (48.5%). 85% of ICHs missed by RRs occurred outside of regular working-hours. Calcifications (39.3%), beam-hardening artifacts (18%), tumors (15.7%), and blood vessels (7.9%) were the most common reasons for AI overcalls. ICH size, image quality, and primary examiner experience were not found to be significantly associated with likelihood of incorrect AI results. CONCLUSION: Complementing human expertise with AI resulted in a 12.2% increase in ICH detection. The AI algorithm overcalled 1.9% HCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00023593). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8629230 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86292302021-11-30 Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies Kundisch, Almut Hönning, Alexander Mutze, Sven Kreissl, Lutz Spohn, Frederik Lemcke, Johannes Sitz, Maximilian Sparenberg, Paul Goelz, Leonie PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Highly accurate detection of intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) on head computed tomography (HCT) scans can prove challenging at high-volume centers. This study aimed to determine the number of additional ICHs detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm and to evaluate reasons for erroneous results at a level I trauma center with teleradiology services. METHODS: In a retrospective multi-center cohort study, consecutive emergency non-contrast HCT scans were analyzed by a commercially available ICH detection software (AIDOC, Tel Aviv, Israel). Discrepancies between AI analysis and initial radiology report (RR) were reviewed by a blinded neuroradiologist to determine the number of additional ICHs detected and evaluate reasons leading to errors. RESULTS: 4946 HCT (05/2020-09/2020) from 18 hospitals were included in the analysis. 205 reports (4.1%) were classified as hemorrhages by both radiology report and AI. Out of a total of 162 (3.3%) discrepant reports, 62 were confirmed as hemorrhages by the reference neuroradiologist. 33 ICHs were identified exclusively via RRs. The AI algorithm detected an additional 29 instances of ICH, missed 12.4% of ICH and overcalled 1.9%; RRs missed 10.9% of ICHs and overcalled 0.2%. Many of the ICHs missed by the AI algorithm were located in the subarachnoid space (42.4%) and under the calvaria (48.5%). 85% of ICHs missed by RRs occurred outside of regular working-hours. Calcifications (39.3%), beam-hardening artifacts (18%), tumors (15.7%), and blood vessels (7.9%) were the most common reasons for AI overcalls. ICH size, image quality, and primary examiner experience were not found to be significantly associated with likelihood of incorrect AI results. CONCLUSION: Complementing human expertise with AI resulted in a 12.2% increase in ICH detection. The AI algorithm overcalled 1.9% HCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00023593). Public Library of Science 2021-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8629230/ /pubmed/34843559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260560 Text en © 2021 Kundisch et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kundisch, Almut Hönning, Alexander Mutze, Sven Kreissl, Lutz Spohn, Frederik Lemcke, Johannes Sitz, Maximilian Sparenberg, Paul Goelz, Leonie Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies |
title | Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies |
title_full | Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies |
title_fullStr | Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies |
title_full_unstemmed | Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies |
title_short | Deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies |
title_sort | deep learning algorithm in detecting intracranial hemorrhages on emergency computed tomographies |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8629230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34843559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260560 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kundischalmut deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT honningalexander deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT mutzesven deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT kreissllutz deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT spohnfrederik deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT lemckejohannes deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT sitzmaximilian deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT sparenbergpaul deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies AT goelzleonie deeplearningalgorithmindetectingintracranialhemorrhagesonemergencycomputedtomographies |