Search

The aim of our study was to establish and compare the diagnostic accuracy and clinical applicability of published chest CT severity scoring systems used for COVID-19 pneumonia assessment and to propose the most efficient CT scoring system with the highest diagnostic performance and the most accurate prediction of disease severity. This retrospective study included 218 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and chest CT. Two radiologists blindly evaluated CT scans and calculated nine different CT severity scores (CT SSs). The diagnostic validity of CT SSs was tested by ROC analysis. Interobserver agreement was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.982–0.995). The predominance of either consolidations or a combination of consolidations and ground-glass opacities (GGOs) was a predictor of more severe disease (both p < 0.005), while GGO prevalence alone was not. Correlation between all CT SSs was high, ranging from 0.848 to 0.971. CT SS 30 had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.805) in discriminating mild from severe COVID-19 disease compared to all the other proposed scoring systems (AUC range 0.755–0.788). In conclusion, CT SS 30 achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy in predicting the severity of COVID-19 disease while maintaining simplicity, reproducibility, and applicability in complex clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variations in COVID-19 lesions such as glass ground opacities (GGO), consolidations, and crazy paving can compromise the ability of solo-deep learning (SDL) or hybrid-deep learning (HDL) artificial intelligence (AI) models in predicting automated COVID-19 lung segmentation in Computed Tomography (CT) from unseen data leading to poor clinical manifestations. As the first study of its kind, "COVLIAS 1.0-Unseen" proves two hypotheses, (i) contrast adjustment is vital for AI, and (ii) HDL is superior to SDL. In a multicenter study, 10,000 CT slices were collected from 72 Italian (ITA) patients with low-GGO, and 80 Croatian (CRO) patients with high-GGO. Hounsfield Units (HU) were automatically adjusted to train the AI models and predict from test data, leading to four combinations—two Unseen sets: (i) train-CRO:test-ITA, (ii) train-ITA:test-CRO, and two Seen sets: (iii) train-CRO:test-CRO, (iv) train-ITA:test-ITA. COVILAS used three SDL models: PSPNet, SegNet, UNet and six HDL models: VGG-PSPNet, VGG-SegNet, VGG-UNet, ResNet-PSPNet, ResNet-SegNet, and ResNet-UNet. Two trained, blinded senior radiologists conducted ground truth annotations. Five types of performance metrics were used to validate COVLIAS 1.0-Unseen which was further benchmarked against MedSeg, an open-source web-based system. After HU adjustment for DS and JI, HDL (Unseen AI) > SDL (Unseen AI) by 4% and 5%, respectively. For CC, HDL (Unseen AI) > SDL (Unseen AI) by 6%. The COVLIAS-MedSeg difference was < 5%, meeting regulatory guidelines.Unseen AI was successfully demonstrated using automated HU adjustment. HDL was found to be superior to SDL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The previous COVID-19 lung diagnosis system lacks both scientific validation and the role of explainable artificial intelligence (AI) for understanding lesion localization. This study presents a cloud-based explainable AI, the "COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI" system using four kinds of class activation maps (CAM) models. Methodology: Our cohort consisted of ~6000 CT slices from two sources (Croatia, 80 COVID-19 patients and Italy, 15 control patients). COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI design consisted of three stages: (i) automated lung segmentation using hybrid deep learning ResNet-UNet model by automatic adjustment of Hounsfield units, hyperparameter optimization, and parallel and distributed training, (ii) classification using three kinds of DenseNet (DN) models (DN-121, DN-169, DN-201), and (iii) validation using four kinds of CAM visualization techniques: gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM), Grad-CAM++, score-weighted CAM (Score-CAM), and FasterScore-CAM. The COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI was validated by three trained senior radiologists for its stability and reliability. The Friedman test was also performed on the scores of the three radiologists. Results: The ResNet-UNet segmentation model resulted in dice similarity of 0.96, Jaccard index of 0.93, a correlation coefficient of 0.99, with a figure-of-merit of 95.99%, while the classifier accuracies for the three DN nets (DN-121, DN-169, and DN-201) were 98%, 98%, and 99% with a loss of ~0.003, ~0.0025, and ~0.002 using 50 epochs, respectively. The mean AUC for all three DN models was 0.99 (p < 0.0001). The COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI showed 80% scans for mean alignment index (MAI) between heatmaps and gold standard, a score of four out of five, establishing the system for clinical settings. Conclusions: The COVLIAS 2.0-cXAI successfully showed a cloud-based explainable AI system for lesion localization in lung CT scans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 is a disease with multiple variants, and is quickly spreading throughout the world. It is crucial to identify patients who are suspected of having COVID-19 early, because the vaccine is not readily available in certain parts of the world. Methodology: Lung computed tomography (CT) imaging can be used to diagnose COVID-19 as an alternative to the RT-PCR test in some cases. The occurrence of ground-glass opacities in the lung region is a characteristic of COVID-19 in chest CT scans, and these are daunting to locate and segment manually. The proposed study consists of a combination of solo deep learning (DL) and hybrid DL (HDL) models to tackle the lesion location and segmentation more quickly. One DL and four HDL models—namely, PSPNet, VGG-SegNet, ResNet-SegNet, VGG-UNet, and ResNet-UNet—were trained by an expert radiologist. The training scheme adopted a fivefold cross-validation strategy on a cohort of 3000 images selected from a set of 40 COVID-19-positive individuals. Results: The proposed variability study uses tracings from two trained radiologists as part of the validation. Five artificial intelligence (AI) models were benchmarked against MedSeg. The best AI model, ResNet-UNet, was superior to MedSeg by 9% and 15% for Dice and Jaccard, respectively, when compared against MD 1, and by 4% and 8%, respectively, when compared against MD 2. Statistical tests—namely, the Mann–Whitney test, paired t-test, and Wilcoxon test—demonstrated its stability and reliability, with p < 0.0001. The online system for each slice was <1 s. Conclusions: The AI models reliably located and segmented COVID-19 lesions in CT scans. The COVLIAS 1.0Lesion lesion locator passed the intervariability test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease associated with systemic changes in immune response, which might be associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of NAFLD on COVID-19 severity and outcomes. Methods A prospective observational study included consecutively hospitalized adult patients, hospitalized between March and June 2021, with severe COVID-19. Patients were screened for fatty liver by ultrasound and subsequently diagnosed with NAFLD. Patients were daily followed until discharge, and demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected and correlated to clinical outcomes. Results Of the 216 patients included, 120 (55.5%) had NAFLD. The NAFLD group had higher C-reactive protein (interquartile range [IQR]) (84.7 [38.6–129.8] mg/L vs 66.9 [32.2–97.3] mg/L; P  = .0340), interleukin-6 (49.19 [22.66–92.04] ng/L vs 13.22 [5.29–39.75] ng/L; P  < .0001), aspartate aminotransferase (58 [40–81] IU/L vs 46 [29–82] IU/L; P  = .0123), alanine aminotransferase (51 [32–73] IU/L vs 40 [23–69] IU/L; P  = .0345), and lactate dehydrogenase (391 [285–483] IU/L vs 324 [247–411] IU/L; P  = .0027). The patients with NAFLD had higher disease severity assessed by 7-category ordinal scale, more frequently required high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (26, 21.66%, vs 10, 10.42%; P  = .0289), had longer duration of hospitalization (IQR) (10 [8–15] days vs 9 [6–12] days; P  = .0018), and more frequently had pulmonary thromboembolism (26.66% vs 13.54%; P  = .0191). On multivariable analyses, NAFLD was negatively associated with time to recovery (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86) and was identified as a risk factor for pulmonary thrombosis (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.46). Conclusions NAFLD is associated with higher COVID-19 severity, more adverse outcomes, and more frequent pulmonary thrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: COVID-19 computed tomography (CT) lung segmentation is critical for COVID lung severity diagnosis. Earlier proposed approaches during 2020–2021 were semiautomated or automated but not accurate, user-friendly, and industry-standard benchmarked. The proposed study compared the COVID Lung Image Analysis System, COVLIAS 1.0 (GBTI, Inc., and AtheroPointTM, Roseville, CA, USA, referred to as COVLIAS), against MedSeg, a web-based Artificial Intelligence (AI) segmentation tool, where COVLIAS uses hybrid deep learning (HDL) models for CT lung segmentation. (2) Materials and Methods: The proposed study used 5000 ITALIAN COVID-19 positive CT lung images collected from 72 patients (experimental data) that confirmed the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Two hybrid AI models from the COVLIAS system, namely, VGG-SegNet (HDL 1) and ResNet-SegNet (HDL 2), were used to segment the CT lungs. As part of the results, we compared both COVLIAS and MedSeg against two manual delineations (MD 1 and MD 2) using (i) Bland–Altman plots, (ii) Correlation coefficient (CC) plots, (iii) Receiver operating characteristic curve, and (iv) Figure of Merit and (v) visual overlays. A cohort of 500 CROATIA COVID-19 positive CT lung images (validation data) was used. A previously trained COVLIAS model was directly applied to the validation data (as part of Unseen-AI) to segment the CT lungs and compare them against MedSeg. (3) Result: For the experimental data, the four CCs between COVLIAS (HDL 1) vs. MD 1, COVLIAS (HDL 1) vs. MD 2, COVLIAS (HDL 2) vs. MD 1, and COVLIAS (HDL 2) vs. MD 2 were 0.96, 0.96, 0.96, and 0.96, respectively. The mean value of the COVLIAS system for the above four readings was 0.96. CC between MedSeg vs. MD 1 and MedSeg vs. MD 2 was 0.98 and 0.98, respectively. Both had a mean value of 0.98. On the validation data, the CC between COVLIAS (HDL 1) vs. MedSeg and COVLIAS (HDL 2) vs. MedSeg was 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. For the experimental data, the difference between the mean values for COVLIAS and MedSeg showed a difference of <2.5%, meeting the standard of equivalence. The average running times for COVLIAS and MedSeg on a single lung CT slice were ~4 s and ~10 s, respectively. (4) Conclusions: The performances of COVLIAS and MedSeg were similar. However, COVLIAS showed improved computing time over MedSeg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]