Search

Background Deep learning (DL), a subset of artificial intelligence (AI), has been applied to pneumothorax diagnosis to aid physician diagnosis, but no meta-analysis has been performed. Methods A search of multiple electronic databases through September 2022 was performed to identify studies that applied DL for pneumothorax diagnosis using imaging. Meta-analysis via a hierarchical model to calculate the summary area under the curve (AUC) and pooled sensitivity and specificity for both DL and physicians was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Prediction Model Study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Results In 56 of the 63 primary studies, pneumothorax was identified from chest radiography. The total AUC was 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.98) for both DL and physicians. The total pooled sensitivity was 84% (95% CI 79-89%) for DL and 85% (95% CI 73-92%) for physicians and the pooled specificity was 96% (95% CI 94-98%) for DL and 98% (95% CI 95-99%) for physicians. More than half of the original studies (57%) had a high risk of bias. Conclusions Our review found the diagnostic performance of DL models was similar to that of physicians, although the majority of studies had a high risk of bias. Further pneumothorax AI research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4-based ChatGPT, GPT-4 with vision (GPT-4V) based ChatGPT, and radiologists in musculoskeletal radiology., Materials and Methods: We included 106 "Test Yourself" cases from Skeletal Radiology between January 2014 and September 2023. We input the medical history and imaging findings into GPT-4-based ChatGPT and the medical history and images into GPT-4V-based ChatGPT, then both generated a diagnosis for each case. Two radiologists (a radiology resident and a board-certified radiologist) independently provided diagnoses for all cases. The diagnostic accuracy rates were determined based on the published ground truth. Chi-square tests were performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4-based ChatGPT, GPT-4V-based ChatGPT, and radiologists., Results: GPT-4-based ChatGPT significantly outperformed GPT-4V-based ChatGPT (p < 0.001) with accuracy rates of 43% (46/106) and 8% (9/106), respectively. The radiology resident and the board-certified radiologist achieved accuracy rates of 41% (43/106) and 53% (56/106). The diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4-based ChatGPT was comparable to that of the radiology resident, but was lower than that of the board-certified radiologist although the differences were not significant (p = 0.78 and 0.22, respectively). The diagnostic accuracy of GPT-4V-based ChatGPT was significantly lower than those of both radiologists (p < 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively)., Conclusion: GPT-4-based ChatGPT demonstrated significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than GPT-4V-based ChatGPT. While GPT-4-based ChatGPT's diagnostic performance was comparable to radiology residents, it did not reach the performance level of board-certified radiologists in musculoskeletal radiology., Clinical Relevance Statement: GPT-4-based ChatGPT outperformed GPT-4V-based ChatGPT and was comparable to radiology residents, but it did not reach the level of board-certified radiologists in musculoskeletal radiology. Radiologists should comprehend ChatGPT's current performance as a diagnostic tool for optimal utilization., Key Points: This study compared the diagnostic performance of GPT-4-based ChatGPT, GPT-4V-based ChatGPT, and radiologists in musculoskeletal radiology. GPT-4-based ChatGPT was comparable to radiology residents, but did not reach the level of board-certified radiologists. When utilizing ChatGPT, it is crucial to input appropriate descriptions of imaging findings rather than the images., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards. Guarantor: The scientific guarantor of this publication is Daiju Ueda. Conflict of Interest: The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. Statistics and biometry: No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Informed consent: Written informed consent was not required for this study because this study utilized published cases. Ethical approval: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Study subjects or cohorts overlap: No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: Retrospective Diagnostic or prognostic study Performed at one institution, (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Intermodality image-to-image translation is an artificial intelligence technique for generating one technique from another., Purpose: This review was designed to systematically identify and quantify biases and quality issues preventing validation and clinical application of artificial intelligence models for intermodality image-to-image translation of brain imaging., Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched through August 2, 2023, for artificial intelligence-based image translation models of radiologic brain images., Study Selection: This review collected 102 works published between April 2017 and August 2023., Data Analysis: Eligible studies were evaluated for quality using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and for bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Medically-focused article adherence was compared with that of engineering-focused articles overall with the Mann-Whitney U test and for each criterion using the Fisher exact test., Data Synthesis: Median adherence to the relevant CLAIM criteria was 69% and 38% for PROBAST questions. CLAIM adherence was lower for engineering-focused articles compared with medically-focused articles (65% versus 73%, P  < .001). Engineering-focused studies had higher adherence for model description criteria, and medically-focused studies had higher adherence for data set and evaluation descriptions., Limitations: Our review is limited by the study design and model heterogeneity., Conclusions: Nearly all studies revealed critical issues preventing clinical application, with engineering-focused studies showing higher adherence for the technical model description but significantly lower overall adherence than medically-focused studies. The pursuit of clinical application requires collaboration from both fields to improve reporting., (© 2024 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.)

Aims: We aimed to develop models to detect aortic stenosis (AS) from chest radiographs-one of the most basic imaging tests-with artificial intelligence., Methods and Results: We used 10 433 retrospectively collected digital chest radiographs from 5638 patients to train, validate, and test three deep learning models. Chest radiographs were collected from patients who had also undergone echocardiography at a single institution between July 2016 and May 2019. These were labelled from the corresponding echocardiography assessments as AS-positive or AS-negative. The radiographs were separated on a patient basis into training [8327 images from 4512 patients, mean age 65 ±  (standard deviation) 15 years], validation (1041 images from 563 patients, mean age 65 ± 14 years), and test (1065 images from 563 patients, mean age 65 ± 14 years) datasets. The soft voting-based ensemble of the three developed models had the best overall performance for predicting AS with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.88), 0.78 (0.67-0.86), 0.71 (0.68-0.73), 0.71 (0.68-0.74), 0.18 (0.14-0.23), and 0.97 (0.96-0.98), respectively, in the validation dataset and 0.83 (0.78-0.88), 0.83 (0.74-0.90), 0.69 (0.66-0.72), 0.71 (0.68-0.73), 0.23 (0.19-0.28), and 0.97 (0.96-0.98), respectively, in the test dataset., Conclusion: Deep learning models using chest radiographs have the potential to differentiate between radiographs of patients with and without AS., Lay Summary: We created artificial intelligence (AI) models using deep learning to identify aortic stenosis (AS) from chest radiographs. Three AI models were developed and evaluated with 10 433 retrospectively collected radiographs and labelled from echocardiography reports. The ensemble AI model could detect AS in a test dataset with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.78-0.88). Since chest radiography is a cost-effective and widely available imaging test, our model can provide an additive resource for the detection of AS., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)