Search

Dark-field radiography of the human chest has been demonstrated to have promising potential for the analysis of the lung microstructure and the diagnosis of respiratory diseases. However, previous studies of dark-field chest radiographs evaluated the lung signal only in the inspiratory breathing state. Our work aims to add a new perspective to these previous assessments by locally comparing dark-field lung information between different respiratory states. To this end, we discuss suitable image registration methods for dark-field chest radiographs to enable consistent spatial alignment of the lung in distinct breathing states. Utilizing full inspiration and expiration scans from a clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease study, we assess the performance of the proposed registration framework and outline applicable evaluation approaches. Our regional characterization of lung dark-field signal changes between the breathing states provides a proof-of-principle that dynamic radiography-based lung function assessment approaches may benefit from considering registered dark-field images in addition to standard plain chest radiographs., Comment: 10 pages, 6 figures

Objectives: Evaluating the effects and artifacts introduced by medical foreign bodies in clinical dark-field chest radiographs and assessing their influence on the evaluation of pulmonary tissue, compared to conventional radiographs. Material & Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from subjects enrolled in clinical trials conducted between 2018 and 2021, focusing on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19 patients. All patients obtained a radiograph using an in-house developed clinical prototype for grating-based dark-field chest radiography. The prototype simultaneously delivers a conventional and dark-field radiograph. Two radiologists independently assessed the clinical studies to identify patients with foreign bodies. Subsequently, an analysis was conducted on the effects and artifacts attributed to distinct foreign bodies and their impact on the assessment of pulmonary tissue. Results: Overall, 30 subjects with foreign bodies were included in this study (mean age, 64 years +/- 11 [standard deviation]; 15 men). Foreign bodies composed of materials lacking microstructure exhibited a diminished dark-field signal or no discernible signal. Foreign bodies with a microstructure, in our investigations the cementation of the kyphoplasty, produce a positive dark-field signal. Since most foreign bodies lack microstructural features, dark-field imaging revealed fewer signals and artifacts by foreign bodies compared to conventional radiographs. Conclusion: Dark-field radiography enhances the assessment of pulmonary tissue with overlaying foreign bodies compared to conventional radiography. Reduced interfering signals result in fewer overlapping radiopaque artifacts within the investigated regions. This mitigates the impact on image quality and interpretability of the radiographs and the projection-related limitations of radiography compared to CT.

The remarkable generative capabilities of multimodal foundation models are currently being explored for a variety of applications. Generating radiological impressions is a challenging task that could significantly reduce the workload of radiologists. In our study we explored and analyzed the generative abilities of GPT-4 for Chest X-ray impression generation. To generate and evaluate impressions of chest X-rays based on different input modalities (image, text, text and image), a blinded radiological report was written for 25-cases of the publicly available NIH-dataset. GPT-4 was given image, finding section or both sequentially to generate an input dependent impression. In a blind randomized reading, 4-radiologists rated the impressions and were asked to classify the impression origin (Human, AI), providing justification for their decision. Lastly text model evaluation metrics and their correlation with the radiological score (summation of the 4 dimensions) was assessed. According to the radiological score, the human-written impression was rated highest, although not significantly different to text-based impressions. The automated evaluation metrics showed moderate to substantial correlations to the radiological score for the image impressions, however individual scores were highly divergent among inputs, indicating insufficient representation of radiological quality. Detection of AI-generated impressions varied by input and was 61% for text-based impressions. Impressions classified as AI-generated had significantly worse radiological scores even when written by a radiologist, indicating potential bias. Our study revealed significant discrepancies between a radiological assessment and common automatic evaluation metrics depending on the model input. The detection of AI-generated findings is subject to bias that highly rated impressions are perceived as human-written.