Performance and Agreement When Annotating Chest X-ray Text Reports-A Preliminary Step in the Development of a Deep Learning-Based Prioritization and Detection System.

A chest X-ray report is a communicative tool and can be used as data for developing artificial intelligence-based decision support systems. For both, consistent understanding and labeling is important. Our aim was to investigate how readers would comprehend and annotate 200 chest X-ray reports. Reports written between 1 January 2015 and 11 March 2022 were selected based on search words. Annotators included three board-certified radiologists, two trained radiologists (physicians), two radiographers (radiological technicians), a non-radiological physician, and a medical student. Consensus labels by two or more of the experienced radiologists were considered "gold standard". Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC) was calculated to assess annotation performance, and descriptive statistics were used to assess agreement between individual annotators and labels. The intermediate radiologist had the best correlation to "gold standard" (MCC 0.77). This was followed by the novice radiologist and medical student (MCC 0.71 for both), the novice radiographer (MCC 0.65), non-radiological physician (MCC 0.64), and experienced radiographer (MCC 0.57). Our findings showed that for developing an artificial intelligence-based support system, if trained radiologists are not available, annotations from non-radiological annotators with basic and general knowledge may be more aligned with radiologists compared to annotations from sub-specialized medical staff, if their sub-specialization is outside of diagnostic radiology.

Inter- and Intra-Observer Agreement When Using a Diagnostic Labeling Scheme for Annotating Findings on Chest X-rays-An Early Step in the Development of a Deep Learning-Based Decision Support System.

Consistent annotation of data is a prerequisite for the successful training and testing of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems in radiology. This can be obtained by standardizing terminology when annotating diagnostic images. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the annotation consistency among radiologists when using a novel diagnostic labeling scheme for chest X-rays. Six radiologists with experience ranging from one to sixteen years, annotated a set of 100 fully anonymized chest X-rays. The blinded radiologists annotated on two separate occasions. Statistical analyses were done using Randolph's kappa and PABAK, and the proportions of specific agreements were calculated. Fair-to-excellent agreement was found for all labels among the annotators (Randolph's Kappa, 0.40-0.99). The PABAK ranged from 0.12 to 1 for the two-reader inter-rater agreement and 0.26 to 1 for the intra-rater agreement. Descriptive and broad labels achieved the highest proportion of positive agreement in both the inter- and intra-reader analyses. Annotating findings with specific, interpretive labels were found to be difficult for less experienced radiologists. Annotating images with descriptive labels may increase agreement between radiologists with different experience levels compared to annotation with interpretive labels.

The Added Effect of Artificial Intelligence on Physicians' Performance in Detecting Thoracic Pathologies on CT and Chest X-ray: A Systematic Review.

Our systematic review investigated the additional effect of artificial intelligence-based devices on human observers when diagnosing and/or detecting thoracic pathologies using different diagnostic imaging modalities, such as chest X-ray and CT. Peer-reviewed, original research articles from EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were retrieved. Included articles were published within the last 20 years and used a device based on artificial intelligence (AI) technology to detect or diagnose pulmonary findings. The AI-based device had to be used in an observer test where the performance of human observers with and without addition of the device was measured as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, AUC, or time spent on image reading. A total of 38 studies were included for final assessment. The quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) was used for bias assessment. The average sensitivity increased from 67.8% to 74.6%; specificity from 82.2% to 85.4%; accuracy from 75.4% to 81.7%; and Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) from 0.75 to 0.80. Generally, a faster reading time was reported when radiologists were aided by AI-based devices. Our systematic review showed that performance generally improved for the physicians when assisted by AI-based devices compared to unaided interpretation.

Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection Applying Deep Learning or Machine Learning Algorithms to the LIDC-IDRI Database: A Systematic Review.

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the literature available on machine learning (ML) algorithms applied to the Lung Image Database Consortium Image Collection (LIDC-IDRI) database as a tool for the optimization of detecting lung nodules in thoracic CT scans. This systematic review was compiled according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only original research articles concerning algorithms applied to the LIDC-IDRI database were included. The initial search yielded 1972 publications after removing duplicates, and 41 of these articles were included in this study. The articles were divided into two subcategories describing their overall architecture. The majority of feature-based algorithms achieved an accuracy >90% compared to the deep learning (DL) algorithms that achieved an accuracy in the range of 82.2%⁻97.6%. In conclusion, ML and DL algorithms are able to detect lung nodules with a high level of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity using ML, when applied to an annotated archive of CT scans of the lung. However, there is no consensus on the method applied to determine the efficiency of ML algorithms.