Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence Models: Insights from the American Society of Functional Neuroradiology Artificial Intelligence Competition.
Jiang, Bin; Ozkara, Burak B; Zhu, Guangming; Boothroyd, Derek; Allen, Jason W; Barboriak, Daniel P; Chang, Peter; Chan, Cynthia; Chaudhari, Ruchir; Chen, Hui; Chukus, Anjeza; Ding, Victoria; Douglas, David; Filippi, Christopher G; Flanders, Adam E; Godwin, Ryan; Hashmi, Syed; Hess, Christopher; Hsu, Kevin; Lui, Yvonne W; Maldjian, Joseph A; Michel, Patrik; Nalawade, Sahil S; Patel, Vishal; Raghavan, Prashant; Sair, Haris I; Tanabe, Jody; Welker, Kirk; Whitlow, Christopher T; Zaharchuk, Greg; Wintermark, Max.
Afiliación
  • Jiang B; From the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Ozkara BB; Department of Neuroradiology (B.B.O., H.C., M.W.), MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  • Zhu G; Department of Neurology (G.Zhu), The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
  • Boothroyd D; Department of Medicine (D.B., V.D.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
  • Allen JW; Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (J.W.A.), Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  • Barboriak DP; Department of Radiology (D.P.B.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
  • Chang P; Department of Radiological Sciences (P.C.), University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
  • Chan C; From the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Chaudhari R; From the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Chen H; Sutter Imaging (R.C.), Sutter Health, Sacramento, California.
  • Chukus A; Department of Neuroradiology (B.B.O., H.C., M.W.), MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
  • Ding V; From the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Douglas D; Department of Medicine (D.B., V.D.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
  • Filippi CG; From the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Flanders AE; Department of Radiology (C.G.F.), Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Godwin R; Department of Radiology (A.E.F.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  • Hashmi S; Department of Radiology (R.G.), University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
  • Hess C; From the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Hsu K; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (C.H.), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
  • Lui YW; Department of Radiology (K.H., Y.W.L), New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
  • Maldjian JA; Department of Radiology (K.H., Y.W.L), New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
  • Michel P; Department of Radiology (J.A.M., S.S.N.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
  • Nalawade SS; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (P.M.), Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Patel V; Department of Radiology (J.A.M., S.S.N.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
  • Raghavan P; Department of Radiology (V.P.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
  • Sair HI; Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (P.R.), University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Tanabe J; The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (H.I.S.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Welker K; The Malone Center for Engineering in Healthcare (H.I.S.), Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Whitlow CT; Department of Radiology (J.T.), University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
  • Zaharchuk G; Department of Radiology (K.W.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
  • Wintermark M; Department of Radiology (C.T.W), Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol ; 45(9): 1276-1283, 2024 Sep 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38663992
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

PURPOSE:

Artificial intelligence models in radiology are frequently developed and validated using data sets from a single institution and are rarely tested on independent, external data sets, raising questions about their generalizability and applicability in clinical practice. The American Society of Functional Neuroradiology (ASFNR) organized a multicenter artificial intelligence competition to evaluate the proficiency of developed models in identifying various pathologies on NCCT, assessing age-based normality and estimating medical urgency. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

In total, 1201 anonymized, full-head NCCT clinical scans from 5 institutions were pooled to form the data set. The data set encompassed studies with normal findings as well as those with pathologies, including acute ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, and mass effect (detection of these, task 1). NCCTs were also assessed to determine if findings were consistent with expected brain changes for the patient's age (task 2 age-based normality assessment) and to identify any abnormalities requiring immediate medical attention (task 3 evaluation of findings for urgent intervention). Five neuroradiologists labeled each NCCT, with consensus interpretations serving as the ground truth. The competition was announced online, inviting academic institutions and companies. Independent central analysis assessed the performance of each model. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each artificial intelligence model, along with the area under the ROC curve.

RESULTS:

Four teams processed 1177 studies. The median age of patients was 62 years, with an interquartile range of 33 years. Nineteen teams from various academic institutions registered for the competition. Of these, 4 teams submitted their final results. No commercial entities participated in the competition. For task 1, areas under the ROC curve ranged from 0.49 to 0.59. For task 2, two teams completed the task with area under the ROC curve values of 0.57 and 0.52. For task 3, teams had little-to-no agreement with the ground truth.

CONCLUSIONS:

To assess the performance of artificial intelligence models in real-world clinical scenarios, we analyzed their performance in the ASFNR Artificial Intelligence Competition. The first ASFNR Competition underscored the gap between expectation and reality; and the models largely fell short in their assessments. As the integration of artificial intelligence tools into clinical workflows increases, neuroradiologists must carefully recognize the capabilities, constraints, and consistency of these technologies. Before institutions adopt these algorithms, thorough validation is essential to ensure acceptable levels of performance in clinical settings.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Inteligencia Artificial Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Inteligencia Artificial Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article