Search

In this review, we focused on the applicability of artificial intelligence (AI) for opportunistic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) detection in computed tomography (CT). We used the academic search system PubMed as the primary source for the literature search and Google Scholar as a supplementary source of evidence. We searched through 2 February 2022. All studies on automated AAA detection or segmentation in noncontrast abdominal CT were included. For bias assessment, we developed and used an adapted version of the QUADAS-2 checklist. We included eight studies with 355 cases, of which 273 (77%) contained AAA. The highest risk of bias and level of applicability concerns were observed for the "patient selection" domain, due to the 100% pathology rate in the majority (75%) of the studies. The mean sensitivity value was 95% (95% CI 100–87%), the mean specificity value was 96.6% (95% CI 100–75.7%), and the mean accuracy value was 95.2% (95% CI 100–54.5%). Half of the included studies performed diagnostic accuracy estimation, with only one study having data on all diagnostic accuracy metrics. Therefore, we conducted a narrative synthesis. Our findings indicate high study heterogeneity, requiring further research with balanced noncontrast CT datasets and adherence to reporting standards in order to validate the high sensitivity value obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computed tomography (CT) has been an essential diagnostic tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to develop an optimal CT protocol in terms of safety and reliability. For this, we assessed the inter-observer agreement between CT and low-dose CT (LDCT) with soft and sharp kernels using a semi-quantitative severity scale in a prospective study (Moscow, Russia). Two consecutive scans with CT and LDCT were performed in a single visit. Reading was performed by ten radiologists with 3–25 years' experience. The study included 230 patients, and statistical analysis showed LDCT with a sharp kernel as the most reliable protocol (percentage agreement 74.35 ± 43.77%), but its advantage was marginal. There was no significant correlation between radiologists' experience and average percentage agreement for all four evaluated protocols. Regarding the radiation exposure, CTDIvol was 3.6 ± 0.64 times lower for LDCT. In conclusion, CT and LDCT with soft and sharp reconstructions are equally reliable for COVID-19 reporting using the "CT 0-4" scale. The LDCT protocol allows for a significant decrease in radiation exposure but may be restricted by body mass index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]