ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024
Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Identification of Mass Effect and Vasogenic Edema on CT of the Head.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMass effect and vasogenic edema are critical findings on CT of the head. This study compared the accuracy of an artificial intelligence model (Annalise Enterprise CTB) with consensus neuroradiologists' interpretations in detecting mass effect and vasogenic edema. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective stand-alone performance assessment was conducted on data sets of noncontrast CT head cases acquired between 2016 and 2022 for each finding. The cases were obtained from patients 18 years of age or older from 5 hospitals in the United States. The positive cases were selected consecutively on the basis of the original clinical reports using natural language processing and manual confirmation. The negative cases were selected by taking the next negative case acquired from the same CT scanner after positive cases. Each case was interpreted independently by up-to-three neuroradiologists to establish consensus interpretations. Each case was then interpreted by the artificial intelligence model for the presence of the relevant finding. The neuroradiologists were provided with the entire CT study. The artificial intelligence model separately received thin (≤1.5 mm) and/or thick (>1.5 and ≤5 mm) axial series.
resultsThe 2 cohorts included 818 cases for mass effect and 310 cases for vasogenic edema. The artificial intelligence model identified mass effect with a sensitivity of 96.6% (95% CI, 94.9%-98.2%) and a specificity of 89.8% (95% CI, 84.7%-94.2%) for the thin series, and 95.3% (95% CI, 93.5%-96.8%) and 93.1% (95% CI, 89.1%-96.6%) for the thick series. It identified vasogenic edema with a sensitivity of 90.2% (95% CI, 82.0%-96.7%) and a specificity of 93.5% (95% CI, 88.9%-97.2%) for the thin series, and 90.0% (95% CI, 84.0%-96.0%) and 95.5% (95% CI, 92.5%-98.0%) for the thick series. The corresponding areas under the curve were at least 0.980.
conclusionsThe assessed artificial intelligence model accurately identified mass effect and vasogenic edema in this CT data set. It could assist the clinical workflow by prioritizing interpretation of cases with abnormal findings, possibly benefiting patients through earlier identification and subsequent treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.