Assessing deep learning reconstruction for faster prostate MRI: visual vs. diagnostic performance metrics.

OBJECTIVE: Deep learning (DL) MRI reconstruction enables fast scan acquisition with good visual quality, but the diagnostic impact is often not assessed because of large reader study requirements. This study used existing diagnostic DL to assess the diagnostic quality of reconstructed images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multisite study of 1535 patients assessed biparametric prostate MRI between 2016 and 2020. Likely clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) lesions (PI-RADS ≥ 4) were delineated by expert radiologists. T2-weighted scans were retrospectively undersampled, simulating accelerated protocols. DL reconstruction (DLRecon) and diagnostic DL detection (DLDetect) were developed. The effect on the partial area under (pAUC), the Free-Response Operating Characteristic (FROC) curve, and the structural similarity (SSIM) were compared as metrics for diagnostic and visual quality, respectively. DLDetect was validated with a reader concordance analysis. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon, permutation, and Cohen's kappa tests for visual quality, diagnostic performance, and reader concordance. RESULTS: DLRecon improved visual quality at 4- and 8-fold (R4, R8) subsampling rates, with SSIM (range: -1 to 1) improved to 0.78 ± 0.02 (p < 0.001) and 0.67 ± 0.03 (p < 0.001) from 0.68 ± 0.03 and 0.51 ± 0.03, respectively. However, diagnostic performance at R4 showed a pAUC FROC of 1.33 (CI 1.28-1.39) for DL and 1.29 (CI 1.23-1.35) for naive reconstructions, both significantly lower than fully sampled pAUC of 1.58 (DL: p = 0.024, naïve: p = 0.02). Similar trends were noted for R8. CONCLUSION: DL reconstruction produces visually appealing images but may reduce diagnostic accuracy. Incorporating diagnostic AI into the assessment framework offers a clinically relevant metric essential for adopting reconstruction models into clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In clinical settings, caution is warranted when using DL reconstruction for MRI scans. While it recovered visual quality, it failed to match the prostate cancer detection rates observed in scans not subjected to acceleration and DL reconstruction.

What makes a good scientific presentation on artificial intelligence in medical imaging?

PURPOSE: Adequate communication of scientific findings is crucial to enhance knowledge transfer. This study aimed to determine the key features of a good scientific oral presentation on artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging. METHODS: A total of 26 oral presentations dealing with original research on AI studies in medical imaging at the 2023 RSNA annual meeting were included and systematically assessed by three observers. The presentation quality of the research question, inclusion criteria, reference standard, method, results, clinical impact, presentation clarity, presenter engagement, and the presentation's quality of knowledge transfer were assessed using five-point Likert scales. The number of slides, the average number of words per slide, the number of interactive slides, the number of figures, and the number of tables were also determined for each presentation. Mixed-effects ordinal regression was used to assess the association between the above-mentioned variables and the quality of knowledge transfer of the presentation. RESULTS: A significant positive association was found between the quality of the presentation of the research question and the presentation's quality of knowledge transfer (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5, P = 0.005). The average number of words per slide was significantly negatively associated with the presentation's quality of knowledge transfer (OR: 0.9, P < 0.001). No other significant associations were found. CONCLUSION: Researchers who orally present their scientific findings in the field of AI and medical imaging should pay attention to clearly communicating their research question and minimizing the number of words per slide to maximize the value of their presentation.

Using deep learning to optimize the prostate MRI protocol by assessing the diagnostic efficacy of MRI sequences.

PURPOSE: To explore diagnostic deep learning for optimizing the prostate MRI protocol by assessing the diagnostic efficacy of MRI sequences. METHOD: This retrospective study included 840 patients with a biparametric prostate MRI scan. The MRI protocol included a T2-weighted image, three DWI sequences (b50, b400, and b800 s/mm2), a calculated ADC map, and a calculated b1400 sequence. Two accelerated MRI protocols were simulated, using only two acquired b-values to calculate the ADC and b1400. Deep learning models were trained to detect prostate cancer lesions on accelerated and full protocols. The diagnostic performances of the protocols were compared on the patient-level with the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), using DeLong's test, and on the lesion-level with the partial area under the free response operating characteristic (pAUFROC), using a permutation test. Validation of the results was performed among expert radiologists. RESULTS: No significant differences in diagnostic performance were found between the accelerated protocols and the full bpMRI baseline. Omitting b800 reduced 53% DWI scan time, with a performance difference of + 0.01 AUROC (p = 0.20) and -0.03 pAUFROC (p = 0.45). Omitting b400 reduced 32% DWI scan time, with a performance difference of -0.01 AUROC (p = 0.65) and + 0.01 pAUFROC (p = 0.73). Multiple expert radiologists underlined the findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that deep learning can assess the diagnostic efficacy of MRI sequences by comparing prostate MRI protocols on diagnostic accuracy. Omitting either the b400 or the b800 DWI sequence can optimize the prostate MRI protocol by reducing scan time without compromising diagnostic quality.