Talus-derived reference coordinate system for 3D calcaneal assessment: A novel approach to improve morphological measurements.

In 3D-analysis of the calcaneus, a consistent coordinate system aligned with the original anatomical directions is crucial for pre- and postoperative analysis. This importance stems from the calcaneus's key role in weight-bearing and biomechanical alignment. However, defining a reliable coordinate system based solely on fractured or surgically reconstructed calcanei presents significant challenges. Given its anatomical prominence and consistent orientation, the talus offers a potential solution to this challenge. Our work explores the feasibility of talus-derived coordinate systems for 3D-modeling of the calcaneus across its various conditions. Four methods were tested on nonfractured, fractured and surgically reconstructed calcanei, utilizing Principal Component Analysis, anatomical landmarks, bounding box, and an atlas-based approach. The methods were compared with a self-defined calcaneus reference coordinate system. Additionally, the impact of deviation of the coordinate system on morphological measurements was investigated. Among methods for constructing nonfractured calcanei coordinate systems, the atlas-based method displayed the lowest Root Mean Square value in comparison with the reference coordinate system. For morphological measures like Böhler's Angle and the Critical angle of Gissane, the atlas talus-based system closely aligned with ground truth, yielding differences of 0.6° and 1.2°, respectively, compared to larger deviations seen in other talus-based coordinate systems. In conclusion, all tested methods were feasible for creating a talus derived coordinate system. A talus derived coordinate system showed potential, offering benefits for morphological measurements and clinical scenarios involving fractured and surgically reconstructed calcanei. Further research is recommended to assess the impact of these coordinate systems on surgical planning and outcomes.

Radiology AI Deployment and Assessment Rubric (RADAR) to bring value-based AI into radiological practice.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive framework for value assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. METHODS: This paper presents the RADAR framework, which has been adapted from Fryback and Thornbury's imaging efficacy framework to facilitate the valuation of radiology AI from conception to local implementation. Local efficacy has been newly introduced to underscore the importance of appraising an AI technology within its local environment. Furthermore, the RADAR framework is illustrated through a myriad of study designs that help assess value. RESULTS: RADAR presents a seven-level hierarchy, providing radiologists, researchers, and policymakers with a structured approach to the comprehensive assessment of value in radiology AI. RADAR is designed to be dynamic and meet the different valuation needs throughout the AI's lifecycle. Initial phases like technical and diagnostic efficacy (RADAR-1 and RADAR-2) are assessed pre-clinical deployment via in silico clinical trials and cross-sectional studies. Subsequent stages, spanning from diagnostic thinking to patient outcome efficacy (RADAR-3 to RADAR-5), require clinical integration and are explored via randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Cost-effectiveness efficacy (RADAR-6) takes a societal perspective on financial feasibility, addressed via health-economic evaluations. The final level, RADAR-7, determines how prior valuations translate locally, evaluated through budget impact analysis, multi-criteria decision analyses, and prospective monitoring. CONCLUSION: The RADAR framework offers a comprehensive framework for valuing radiology AI. Its layered, hierarchical structure, combined with a focus on local relevance, aligns RADAR seamlessly with the principles of value-based radiology. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The RADAR framework advances artificial intelligence in radiology by delineating a much-needed framework for comprehensive valuation. KEYPOINTS: • Radiology artificial intelligence lacks a comprehensive approach to value assessment. • The RADAR framework provides a dynamic, hierarchical method for thorough valuation of radiology AI. • RADAR advances clinical radiology by bridging the artificial intelligence implementation gap.

Radiology in the Era of Value-Based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

BACKGROUND: The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. METHODS, FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION: This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined.

Radiology in the Era of Value-based Healthcare: A Multi-Society Expert Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, IS3R, RANZCR, and RSNA.

Background The Value-Based Healthcare (VBH) concept is designed to improve individual healthcare outcomes without increasing expenditure, and is increasingly being used to determine resourcing of and reimbursement for medical services. Radiology is a major contributor to patient and societal healthcare at many levels. Despite this, some VBH models do not acknowledge radiology's central role; this may have future negative consequences for resource allocation. Methods, findings and interpretation This multi-society paper, representing the views of Radiology Societies in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, describes the place of radiology in VBH models and the health-care value contributions of radiology. Potential steps to objectify and quantify the value contributed by radiology to healthcare are outlined. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

The Value of Quantitative Musculoskeletal Imaging.

Musculoskeletal imaging is mainly based on the subjective and qualitative analysis of imaging examinations. However, integration of quantitative assessment of imaging data could increase the value of imaging in both research and clinical practice. Some imaging modalities, such as perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI, or T2 mapping, are intrinsically quantitative. But conventional morphological imaging can also be analyzed through the quantification of various parameters. The quantitative data retrieved from imaging examinations can serve as biomarkers and be used to support diagnosis, determine patient prognosis, or monitor therapy.We focus on the value, or clinical utility, of quantitative imaging in the musculoskeletal field. There is currently a trend to move from volume- to value-based payments. This review contains definitions and examines the role that quantitative imaging may play in the implementation of value-based health care. The influence of artificial intelligence on the value of quantitative musculoskeletal imaging is also discussed.

Assessment of actionable findings in radiology reports.

PURPOSE: The American College of Radiology (ACR) Actionable Reporting Work Group defined three categories of imaging findings that require additional, nonroutine communication with the referring physician because of their urgency or unexpectedness. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of actionable findings in radiology reports, and to assess how well radiologists agree on the categorisation of actionable findings. METHOD: From 124,909 consecutive radiology reports stored in the electronic health record system of a large university hospital, 1000 reports were randomly selected. Two radiologists independently annotated all actionable findings according to the three categories of urgency defined by the ACR Work Group. Annotation differences were resolved in a consensus meeting and a final category was established for each report. Interannotator agreement was measured by accuracy and the kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The prevalence of the three categories of actionable findings together was 32.5 %. Of all reports, 10.9 % were from patients seen in the emergency department. Prevalence of actionable findings for these patients (45.9 %) was considerably higher than for patients in routine clinical care (30.9 %). Interannotator agreement scores on the categorisation of actionable findings were 0.812 for accuracy and 0.616 for kappa coefficient. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of actionable findings in radiology reports is high. The interannotator agreement scores are moderate, indicating that categorisation of actionable findings is a difficult task. To avoid unneeded increase in the workload of radiologists, in particular in routine practice, clinical context may need to be considered in deciding whether a finding is actionable.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Measure Value in Musculoskeletal Imaging.

In the era of value-based health care, adding value is a key element in providing care. The choice of appropriate imaging modality and protocol should be based on consideration of patients' values, health care outcomes, and cost-effectiveness, taking into account the perspective of the decision maker, the health care system, and society at large. This article provides an overview of the available tools to measure value, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness in musculoskeletal radiology, illustrated with relevant examples.

Systematic review of guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment: Which recommendations should clinicians follow for a cardiovascular health check?

OBJECTIVE: To appraise guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment to guide selection of screening interventions for a health check. DATA SOURCES: Guidelines in the English language published between January 1, 2003, and May 2, 2009, were retrieved using MEDLINE and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health, Canadian Medical Association Infobase, and G-I-N International Guideline Library. STUDY SELECTION: We included guidelines developed on behalf of professional organizations from Western countries, containing recommendations on cardiovascular risk assessment for the apparently healthy population. Titles and abstracts were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Of 1984 titles identified, 27 guidelines met our criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Rigor of guideline development was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted information on conflicts of interest and recommendations. RESULTS: Sixteen of 27 guidelines reported conflicts of interest and 17 showed considerable rigor. These included recommendations on assessment of total cardiovascular risk (7 guidelines), dyslipidemia (2), hypertension (2), and dysglycemia (7). Recommendations on total cardiovascular risk and dyslipidemia included prediction models integrating multiple risk factors, whereas remaining recommendations were focused on single risk factors. No consensus was found on recommended target populations, treatment thresholds, and screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Differences among the guidelines imply important variation in allocation of preventive interventions. To make informed decisions, physicians should use only the recommendations from rigorously developed guidelines.

Prediction of 30-day mortality after endovascular repair or open surgery in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Glasgow Aneurysm Score (GAS) in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) treated with endovascular repair or open surgery and to update the GAS so that it predicts 30-day mortality for patients with ruptured AAA treated with endovascular repair or open surgery. METHODS: In a multicenter prospective observational study, 233 consecutive patients with ruptured AAAs were evaluated; 32 patients did not survive to repair and statistical analysis was performed using collected data on 201 patients. All patients who were treated with endovascular repair (n = 58) or open surgery (n = 143) were included. The GAS was calculated for each patient. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was used to indicate discriminative ability. We tested for interactions between risk factors and the procedure performed. The GAS was updated to predict 30-day mortality after endovascular repair or open surgery in patients with ruptured AAAs using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 15/58 (26%) for patients treated with endovascular repair and 57/143 (40%) for patients treated with open surgery (P = .06). The AUC for GAS was 0.69. No relevant interactions were found. The updated prediction rule (AUC = 0.70) can be calculated with the following formula: + 7 for open surgery + age in years + 17 for shock + 7 for myocardial disease + 10 for cerebrovascular disease + 14 for renal insufficiency. CONCLUSION: We showed limited discriminative ability of the GAS and therefore updated the GAS by adding the type of procedure performed. This updated prediction rule predicts 30-day mortality for patients with ruptured AAAs treated with endovascular repair or open surgery.

Acute abdominal aortic aneurysms: cost analysis of endovascular repair and open surgery in hemodynamically stable patients with 1-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the in-hospital and 1-year follow-up costs of endovascular aneurysm repair and conventional open surgery in patients with acute infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by using a resource-use approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived. In-hospital costs for all consecutive patients (61 men, six women; mean age, 72.0 years) who underwent endovascular repair (n = 32) or open surgery (n = 35) for acute infrarenal AAA from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2004, were assessed by using a resource-use approach. Patients who did not undergo computed tomography before the procedure were excluded from analysis. One-year follow-up costs were complete for 30 patients who underwent endovascular repair and for 34 patients who underwent open surgery. Costs were assessed from a health care perspective. Mean costs were calculated for each treatment group and were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test (alpha = .05). The influence of clinical variables on the total in-hospital cost was investigated by using univariate and multivariate analyses. Costs were expressed in euros for the year 2003. RESULTS: Sex, age, and comorbidity did not differ between treatment groups (P > .05). The mean total in-hospital costs were lower for patients who underwent endovascular repair than for those who underwent open surgery (euro20 767 vs euro35 470, respectively; P = .004). The total costs, including those for 1-year follow-up, were euro23 588 for patients who underwent endovascular repair and euro36 448 for those who underwent open surgery (P = .05). The results of multivariate analysis indicated that complications had a significant influence on total in-hospital cost; patients who had complications incurred total in-hospital costs that were 2.27 times higher than those for patients who had no complications. CONCLUSION: Total in-hospital costs and total overall costs, which included 1-year follow-up costs, were lower in patients with acute AAA who underwent endovascular repair than in those who underwent open surgery.