Artificial intelligence-assisted volume isotropic simultaneous interleaved bright- and black-blood examination for brain metastases.

Purpose: To verify the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted volume isotropic simultaneous interleaved bright-/black-blood examination (AI-VISIBLE) for detecting brain metastases.
Methods: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and the requirement for written informed consent was waived. Forty patients were included: 20 patients with and without brain metastases each. Seven independent observers (three radiology residents and four neuroradiologists) participated in two reading sessions: in the first, brain metastases were detected using VISIBLE only; in the second, the results of the first session were comprehensively evaluated by adding AI-VISIBLE information. Sensitivity, diagnostic performance, and false positives/case were evaluated. Diagnostic performance was assessed using a figure-of-merit (FOM). Sensitivity and false positives/case were evaluated using McNemar and paired t-tests, respectively.
Results: The McNemar test revealed a significant difference between VISIBLE with/without AI information (P < 0.0001). Significantly higher sensitivity (94.9 ± 1.7% vs. 88.3 ± 5.1%, P = 0.0028) and FOM (0.983 ± 0.009 vs. 0.972 ± 0.013, P = 0.0063) were achieved using VISIBLE with AI information vs. without. No significant difference was observed in false positives/case with and without AI information (0.23 ± 0.19 vs. 0.18 ± 0.15, P = 0.250). AI-assisted results of radiology residents became comparable to results of neuroradiologists (sensitivity, FOM: 85.9 ± 3.4% vs. 90.0 ± 5.9%, 0.969 ± 0.016 vs. 0.974 ± 0.012 without AI information; 94.8 ± 1.3% vs. 95.0 ± 2.1%, 0.977 ± 0.010 vs. 0.988 ± 0.005 with AI information, respectively).
Conclusion: AI-VISIBLE improved the sensitivity and performance for diagnosing brain metastases.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (Number 24–45). Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)