Artificial Intelligence and Interstitial Lung Disease: Diagnosis and Prognosis.

ABSTRACT: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is now diagnosed by an ILD-board consisting of radiologists, pulmonologists, and pathologists. They discuss the combination of computed tomography (CT) images, pulmonary function tests, demographic information, and histology and then agree on one of the 200 ILD diagnoses. Recent approaches employ computer-aided diagnostic tools to improve detection of disease, monitoring, and accurate prognostication. Methods based on artificial intelligence (AI) may be used in computational medicine, especially in image-based specialties such as radiology. This review summarises and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the latest and most significant published methods that could lead to a holistic system for ILD diagnosis. We explore current AI methods and the data use to predict the prognosis and progression of ILDs. It is then essential to highlight the data that holds the most information related to risk factors for progression, e.g., CT scans and pulmonary function tests. This review aims to identify potential gaps, highlight areas that require further research, and identify the methods that could be combined to yield more promising results in future studies.

A comprehensive review of imaging findings in COVID-19 - status in early 2021.

Medical imaging methods are assuming a greater role in the workup of patients with COVID-19, mainly in relation to the primary manifestation of pulmonary disease and the tissue distribution of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2 (ACE 2) receptor. However, the field is so new that no consensus view has emerged guiding clinical decisions to employ imaging procedures such as radiography, computer tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and magnetic resonance imaging, and in what measure the risk of exposure of staff to possible infection could be justified by the knowledge gained. The insensitivity of current RT-PCR methods for positive diagnosis is part of the rationale for resorting to imaging procedures. While CT is more sensitive than genetic testing in hospitalized patients, positive findings of ground glass opacities depend on the disease stage. There is sparse reporting on PET/CT with [18F]-FDG in COVID-19, but available results are congruent with the earlier literature on viral pneumonias. There is a high incidence of cerebral findings in COVID-19, and likewise evidence of gastrointestinal involvement. Artificial intelligence, notably machine learning is emerging as an effective method for diagnostic image analysis, with performance in the discriminative diagnosis of diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia comparable to that of human practitioners.

A Deep-Learning Diagnostic Support System for the Detection of COVID-19 Using Chest Radiographs: A Multireader Validation Study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five publicly available databases comprising normal CXR, confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia cases, and other pneumonias were used. After the harmonization of the data, the training set included 7966 normal cases, 5451 with other pneumonia, and 258 CXRs with COVID-19 pneumonia, whereas in the testing data set, each category was represented by 100 cases. Eleven blinded radiologists with various levels of expertise independently read the testing data set. The data were analyzed separately with the newly proposed artificial intelligence-based system and by consultant radiologists and residents, with respect to positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and F-score (harmonic mean for PPV and sensitivity). The χ2 test was used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and F-scores of the readers and the system. RESULTS: The proposed system achieved higher overall diagnostic accuracy (94.3%) than the radiologists (61.4% ± 5.3%). The radiologists reached average sensitivities for normal CXR, other type of pneumonia, and COVID-19 pneumonia of 85.0% ± 12.8%, 60.1% ± 12.2%, and 53.2% ± 11.2%, respectively, which were significantly lower than the results achieved by the algorithm (98.0%, 88.0%, and 97.0%; P < 0.00032). The mean PPVs for all 11 radiologists for the 3 categories were 82.4%, 59.0%, and 59.0% for the healthy, other pneumonia, and COVID-19 pneumonia, respectively, resulting in an F-score of 65.5% ± 12.4%, which was significantly lower than the F-score of the algorithm (94.3% ± 2.0%, P < 0.00001). When other pneumonia and COVID-19 pneumonia cases were pooled, the proposed system reached an accuracy of 95.7% for any pathology and the radiologists, 88.8%. The overall accuracy of consultants did not vary significantly compared with residents (65.0% ± 5.8% vs 67.4% ± 4.2%); however, consultants detected significantly more COVID-19 pneumonia cases (P = 0.008) and less healthy cases (P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: The system showed robust accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia detection on CXR and surpassed radiologists at various training levels.