Search Results (2)

An international reader study was conducted to gauge an average diagnostic accuracy of radiologists interpreting chest X-ray images, including those from fluorography and mammography, and establish requirements for stand-alone radiological artificial intelligence (AI) models. The retrospective studies in the datasets were labelled as containing or not containing target pathological findings based on a consensus of two experienced radiologists, and the results of a laboratory test and follow-up examination, where applicable. A total of 204 radiologists from 11 countries with various experience performed an assessment of the dataset with a 5-point Likert scale via a web platform. Eight commercial radiological AI models analyzed the same dataset. The AI AUROC was 0.87 (95% CI:0.83–0.9) versus 0.96 (95% CI 0.94–0.97) for radiologists. The sensitivity and specificity of AI versus radiologists were 0.71 (95% CI 0.64–0.78) versus 0.91 (95% CI 0.86–0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.89–0.96) versus 0.9 (95% CI 0.85–0.94) for AI. The overall diagnostic accuracy of radiologists was superior to AI for chest X-ray and mammography. However, the accuracy of AI was noninferior to the least experienced radiologists for mammography and fluorography, and to all radiologists for chest X-ray. Therefore, an AI-based first reading could be recommended to reduce the workload burden of radiologists for the most common radiological studies such as chest X-ray and mammography. Full article

We performed a multicenter external evaluation of the practical and clinical efficacy of a commercial AI algorithm for chest X-ray (CXR) analysis (Lunit INSIGHT CXR). A retrospective evaluation was performed with a multi-reader study. For a prospective evaluation, the AI model was run on CXR studies; the results were compared to the reports of 226 radiologists. In the multi-reader study, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the AI were 0.94 (CI95%: 0.87–1.0), 0.9 (CI95%: 0.79–1.0), and 0.89 (CI95%: 0.79–0.98); the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of the radiologists were 0.97 (CI95%: 0.94–1.0), 0.9 (CI95%: 0.79–1.0), and 0.95 (CI95%: 0.89–1.0). In most regions of the ROC curve, the AI performed a little worse or at the same level as an average human reader. The McNemar test showed no statistically significant differences between AI and radiologists. In the prospective study with 4752 cases, the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of the AI were 0.84 (CI95%: 0.82–0.86), 0.77 (CI95%: 0.73–0.80), and 0.81 (CI95%: 0.80–0.82). Lower accuracy values obtained during the prospective validation were mainly associated with false-positive findings considered by experts to be clinically insignificant and the false-negative omission of human-reported “opacity”, “nodule”, and calcification. In a large-scale prospective validation of the commercial AI algorithm in clinical practice, lower sensitivity and specificity values were obtained compared to the prior retrospective evaluation of the data of the same population. Full article