End-to-end reproducible AI pipelines in radiology using the cloud.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms hold the potential to revolutionize radiology. However, a significant portion of the published literature lacks transparency and reproducibility, which hampers sustained progress toward clinical translation. Although several reporting guidelines have been proposed, identifying practical means to address these issues remains challenging. Here, we show the potential of cloud-based infrastructure for implementing and sharing transparent and reproducible AI-based radiology pipelines. We demonstrate end-to-end reproducibility from retrieving cloud-hosted data, through data pre-processing, deep learning inference, and post-processing, to the analysis and reporting of the final results. We successfully implement two distinct use cases, starting from recent literature on AI-based biomarkers for cancer imaging. Using cloud-hosted data and computing, we confirm the findings of these studies and extend the validation to previously unseen data for one of the use cases. Furthermore, we provide the community with transparent and easy-to-extend examples of pipelines impactful for the broader oncology field. Our approach demonstrates the potential of cloud resources for implementing, sharing, and using reproducible and transparent AI pipelines, which can accelerate the translation into clinical solutions.

[Artificial intelligence in emergency radiology: fiction or reality?] / L'intelligence artificielle en radiologie aux urgences : fiction ou réalité ?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing technology in our society. The emergency radiology is an area facing an increase of the number of imaging studies and associated to the necessity to promptly deliver an accurate interpretation. The integration of AI algorithms to assist the clinician in providing analyses of the imaging studies while maintaining adequate diagnostic quality opens up new perspectives. There are numerous potential advantages of the implementation of AI in emergency radiology. However, the use of AI faces new challenges, as the algorithms reliability, data security, responsibility issues, and financial, human and material resources.

L'intelligence artificielle (IA) est une technologie en plein développement dans notre société. Le domaine médical, en particulier la radiologie aux urgences, semble offrir un champ d'application intéressant, en raison du nombre croissant d'examens radiologiques et de la nécessité pour le clinicien d'obtenir une interprétation rapide et précise. Les bénéfices potentiels de l'IA sont nombreux, notamment sa capacité à fournir une aide diagnostique pertinente et fiable. Cependant, son utilisation soulève également des préoccupations, telles que la fiabilité des algorithmes, la sécurité des données, les enjeux de responsabilité ou encore les ressources financières, humaines et matérielles.

Assessing sex and gender equity in submission guidelines of radiology journals: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to determine the current percentage of gender and sex equity promoting (GSEP) radiology journals, defined as satisfying at least one criterion of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). A secondary objective was to compare characteristics of GSEP and non-GSEP journals. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis between June 24 and July 3, 2023, was conducted. The author submission guidelines of radiology journals with a 2021 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) were assessed according to the SAGER checklist. GSEP journals were defined as satisfying one or more SAGER checklist criteria in their research instructions. Bibliometric data and journal information were collected from the Journal Citation Reports and National Library of Medicine catalogue. RESULTS: Only 39.7 % (52) of 132 journals satisfied at least one SAGER checklist criterion. Median 2021 JIFs were higher in GSEP journals (4.62, IQR: 3.73 - 5.21) than non-GSEP journals (2.70, IQR: 2.32) (p = 0.00). Median 2021 Journal Citation Index (JCI) scores were higher in GSEP (0.64, 0.56 - 0.73) than non-GSEP journals (0.97, 0.83 - 1.10) (p = 0.00). Cited half-life was shorter for GSEP (5.40, 4.80 - 6.50) than non-GSEP journals (6.70, 5.70 - 7.40) (p = 0.05). Elsevier published 33 of 52 of GSEP journals. CONCLUSION: 60.3% of radiology journals with a 2021 JIF do not meet a single SAGER checklist criterion in their author submission guidelines. GSEP journals had higher impact and source metrics and a shorter cited half-life. Publishers may play a significant role in promoting endorsement of the SAGER checklist in the author submission guidelines of radiology journals.

Integrating and Adopting AI in the Radiology Workflow: A Primer for Standards and Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) Profiles.

The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions in radiology practice creates new demands on existing imaging workflow. Accommodating custom integrations creates a substantial operational and maintenance burden. These custom integrations also increase the likelihood of unanticipated problems. Standards-based interoperability facilitates AI integration with systems from different vendors into a single environment by enabling seamless exchange between information systems in the radiology workflow. Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE) is an initiative to improve how computer systems share information across health care domains, including radiology. IHE integrates existing standards-such as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine, Health Level Seven, and health care lexicons and ontologies (ie, LOINC, RadLex, SNOMED Clinical Terms)-by mapping data elements from one standard to another. IHE Radiology manages profiles (standards-based implementation guides) for departmental workflow and information sharing across care sites, including profiles for scaling AI processing traffic and integrating AI results. This review focuses on the need for standards-based interoperability to scale AI integration in radiology, including a brief review of recent IHE profiles that provide a framework for AI integration. This review also discusses challenges and additional considerations for AI integration, including technical, clinical, and policy perspectives.

What Is Diagnostic Excellence? AJR Podcast Series on Diagnostic Excellence and Error, Episode 1.

In this episode of the AJR Podcast Series on Diagnostic Excellence and Error, Francis Deng, MD, introduces the concept of diagnostic excellence and its relevance to radiologists. Patient-centered definitions of diagnostic error and conceptualizations of the diagnostic process are discussed.

In this episode of the AJR Podcast Series on Diagnostic Excellence and Error, Francis Deng, MD, introduces the concept of diagnostic excellence and its relevance to radiologists. Patient-centered definitions of diagnostic error and conceptualizations of the diagnostic process are discussed.

Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for CLEAR (CLEAR-E3): an EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group Initiative.

Overall quality of radiomics research has been reported as low in literature, which constitutes a major challenge to improve. Consistent, transparent, and accurate reporting is critical, which can be accomplished with systematic use of reporting guidelines. The CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR) was previously developed to assist authors in reporting their radiomic research and to assist reviewers in their evaluation. To take full advantage of CLEAR, further explanation and elaboration of each item, as well as literature examples, may be useful. The main goal of this work, Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for CLEAR (CLEAR-E3), is to improve CLEAR's usability and dissemination. In this international collaborative effort, members of the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics-Radiomics Auditing Group searched radiomics literature to identify representative reporting examples for each CLEAR item. At least two examples, demonstrating optimal reporting, were presented for each item. All examples were selected from open-access articles, allowing users to easily consult the corresponding full-text articles. In addition to these, each CLEAR item's explanation was further expanded and elaborated. For easier access, the resulting document is available at https://radiomic.github.io/CLEAR-E3/ . As a complementary effort to CLEAR, we anticipate that this initiative will assist authors in reporting their radiomics research with greater ease and transparency, as well as editors and reviewers in reviewing manuscripts.Relevance statement Along with the original CLEAR checklist, CLEAR-E3 is expected to provide a more in-depth understanding of the CLEAR items, as well as concrete examples for reporting and evaluating radiomic research.Key points• As a complementary effort to CLEAR, this international collaborative effort aims to assist authors in reporting their radiomics research, as well as editors and reviewers in reviewing radiomics manuscripts.• Based on positive examples from the literature selected by the EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group, each CLEAR item explanation was further elaborated in CLEAR-E3.• The resulting explanation and elaboration document with examples can be accessed at  https://radiomic.github.io/CLEAR-E3/ .

ChatGPT: Evaluating answers on contrast media related questions and finetuning by providing the model with the ESUR guideline on contrast agents.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of GPT-4 for answering questions related to contrast media with and without the context of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guideline on contrast agents. The overarching goal was to determine whether contextual enrichment by providing guideline information improves answers of GPT-4 for clinical decision-making in radiology. METHODS: A set of 64 questions, based on the ESUR guideline on contrast agents mirroring pertinent sections, was developed and posed to GPT-4 both directly and after providing the guideline using a plugin. Responses were graded by experienced radiologists for quality of information and accuracy in pinpointing information from the guideline as well as by radiology residents for utility, using Likert-scales. RESULTS: GPT-4's performance improved significantly with the guideline. Without the guideline, average quality rating was 3.98, which increased to 4.33 with the guideline (p = 0036). In terms of accuracy, 82.3% of answers matched the information from the guideline. Utility scores also reflected a significant improvement with the guideline, with average scores of 4.1 (without) and 4.4 (with) (p = 0.008) with a Fleiss´ Kappa of 0.44. CONCLUSION: GPT-4, when contextually enriched with a guideline, demonstrates enhanced capability in providing guideline-backed recommendations. This approach holds promise for real-time clinical decision-support, making guidelines more actionable. However, further refinements are necessary to maximize the potential of large language models (LLMs). Inherent limitations need to be addressed.

[Expert recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging of muscle disorders]. / Expertenempfehlung zur Magnetresonanztomographie bei Muskelerkrankungen.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance (MRI) imaging of the skeletal muscles (muscle MRI for short) is increasingly being used in clinical routine for diagnosis and longitudinal assessment of muscle disorders. However, cross-centre standards for measurement protocol and radiological assessment are still lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this expert recommendation is to present standards for the application and interpretation of muscle MRI in hereditary and inflammatory muscle disorders. METHODS: This work was developed in collaboration between neurologists, neuroradiologists, radiologists, neuropaediatricians, neuroscientists and MR physicists from different university hospitals in Germany. The recommendations are based on expert knowledge and a focused literature search. RESULTS: The indications for muscle MRI are explained, including the detection and monitoring of structural tissue changes and oedema in the muscle, as well as the identification of a suitable biopsy site. Recommendations for the examination procedure and selection of appropriate MRI sequences are given. Finally, steps for a structured radiological assessment are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The present work provides concrete recommendations for the indication, implementation and interpretation of muscle MRI in muscle disorders. Furthermore, it provides a possible basis for the standardisation of the measurement protocols at all clinical centres in Germany.

Recommendations of the German Radiological Society's breast imaging working group regarding breast MRI. / Aktualisierung der Empfehlungen der AG Mammadiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft zur Durchführung der Mamma-MRT.

· Breast MRI is an essential part of breast imaging. · The recommendations for performing breast MRI have been updated. · A table provides a compact and quick overview. More detailed comments supplement the table.. · The "classic" breast MRI can be performed based on the recommendations. Tips for special clinical questions, such as implant rupture, mammary duct pathology or local lymph node status, are included.. CITATION FORMAT: · Wenkel E, Wunderlich P, Fallenberg E et al. Aktualisierung der Empfehlungen der AG Mammadiagnostik der Deutschen Röntgengesellschaft zur Durchführung der Mamma-MRT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; 196: 939 - 944.

Competency based curriculum for cardiovascular magnetic resonance: A position statement of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

This position statement guides cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging program directors and learners on the key competencies required for Level II and III CMR practitioners, whether trainees come from a radiology or cardiology background. This document is built upon existing curricula and was created and vetted by an international panel of cardiologists and radiologists on behalf of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR).

Self-reported checklists and quality scoring tools in radiomics: a meta-research.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of reporting checklists and quality scoring tools for self-reporting purposes in radiomics literature. METHODS: Literature search was conducted in PubMed (date, April 23, 2023). The radiomics literature was sampled at random after a sample size calculation with a priori power analysis. A systematic assessment for self-reporting, including the use of documentation such as completed checklists or quality scoring tools, was conducted in original research papers. These eligible papers underwent independent evaluation by a panel of nine readers, with three readers assigned to each paper. Automatic annotation was used to assist in this process. Then, a detailed item-by-item confirmation analysis was carried out on papers with checklist documentation, with independent evaluation of two readers. RESULTS: The sample size calculation yielded 117 papers. Most of the included papers were retrospective (94%; 110/117), single-center (68%; 80/117), based on their private data (89%; 104/117), and lacked external validation (79%; 93/117). Only seven papers (6%) had at least one self-reported document (Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), or Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM)), with a statistically significant binomial test (p < 0.001). Median rate of confirmed items for all three documents was 81% (interquartile range, 6). For quality scoring tools, documented scores were higher than suggested scores, with a mean difference of - 7.2 (standard deviation, 6.8). CONCLUSION: Radiomic publications often lack self-reported checklists or quality scoring tools. Even when such documents are provided, it is essential to be cautious, as the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Current state of radiomic literature reveals a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation and inaccurate reporting practices. This critical observation may serve as a catalyst for motivating the radiomics community to adopt and utilize such tools appropriately, thereby fostering rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of their research, moving the field forward. KEY POINTS: • In radiomics literature, there has been a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation. • Even if such documents are provided, it is critical to exercise caution because the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable. • Radiomics community needs to be motivated to adopt and appropriately utilize the reporting checklists and quality scoring tools.