Advancing Precision Medicine: Algebraic Topology and Differential Geometry in Radiology and Computational Pathology.

Precision medicine aims to provide personalized care based on individual patient characteristics, rather than guideline-directed therapies for groups of diseases or patient demographics. Images-both radiology- and pathology-derived-are a major source of information on presence, type, and status of disease. Exploring the mathematical relationship of pixels in medical imaging ("radiomics") and cellular-scale structures in digital pathology slides ("pathomics") offers powerful tools for extracting both qualitative and, increasingly, quantitative data. These analytical approaches, however, may be significantly enhanced by applying additional methods arising from fields of mathematics such as differential geometry and algebraic topology that remain underexplored in this context. Geometry's strength lies in its ability to provide precise local measurements, such as curvature, that can be crucial for identifying abnormalities at multiple spatial levels. These measurements can augment the quantitative features extracted in conventional radiomics, leading to more nuanced diagnostics. By contrast, topology serves as a robust shape descriptor, capturing essential features such as connected components and holes. The field of topological data analysis was initially founded to explore the shape of data, with functional network connectivity in the brain being a prominent example. Increasingly, its tools are now being used to explore organizational patterns of physical structures in medical images and digitized pathology slides. By leveraging tools from both differential geometry and algebraic topology, researchers and clinicians may be able to obtain a more comprehensive, multi-layered understanding of medical images and contribute to precision medicine's armamentarium.

Quantitative Evaluation of Large Language Models to Streamline Radiology Report Impressions: A Multimodal Retrospective Analysis.

Background The complex medical terminology of radiology reports may cause confusion or anxiety for patients, especially given increased access to electronic health records. Large language models (LLMs) can potentially simplify radiology report readability. Purpose To compare the performance of four publicly available LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, Bard [now known as Gemini], and Bing) in producing simplified radiology report impressions. Materials and Methods In this retrospective comparative analysis of the four LLMs (accessed July 23 to July 26, 2023), the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database was used to gather 750 anonymized radiology report impressions covering a range of imaging modalities (MRI, CT, US, radiography, mammography) and anatomic regions. Three distinct prompts were employed to assess the LLMs' ability to simplify report impressions. The first prompt (prompt 1) was "Simplify this radiology report." The second prompt (prompt 2) was "I am a patient. Simplify this radiology report." The last prompt (prompt 3) was "Simplify this radiology report at the 7th grade level." Each prompt was followed by the radiology report impression and was queried once. The primary outcome was simplification as assessed by readability score. Readability was assessed using the average of four established readability indexes. The nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to compare reading grade levels across LLM output. Results All four LLMs simplified radiology report impressions across all prompts tested (P < .001). Within prompts, differences were found between LLMs. Providing the context of being a patient or requesting simplification at the seventh-grade level reduced the reading grade level of output for all models and prompts (except prompt 1 to prompt 2 for ChatGPT-4) (P < .001). Conclusion Although the success of each LLM varied depending on the specific prompt wording, all four models simplified radiology report impressions across all modalities and prompts tested. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahsepar in this issue.

Potential of GPT-4 for Detecting Errors in Radiology Reports: Implications for Reporting Accuracy.

Background Errors in radiology reports may occur because of resident-to-attending discrepancies, speech recognition inaccuracies, and large workload. Large language models, such as GPT-4 (ChatGPT; OpenAI), may assist in generating reports. Purpose To assess effectiveness of GPT-4 in identifying common errors in radiology reports, focusing on performance, time, and cost-efficiency. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 200 radiology reports (radiography and cross-sectional imaging [CT and MRI]) were compiled between June 2023 and December 2023 at one institution. There were 150 errors from five common error categories (omission, insertion, spelling, side confusion, and other) intentionally inserted into 100 of the reports and used as the reference standard. Six radiologists (two senior radiologists, two attending physicians, and two residents) and GPT-4 were tasked with detecting these errors. Overall error detection performance, error detection in the five error categories, and reading time were assessed using Wald χ2 tests and paired-sample t tests. Results GPT-4 (detection rate, 82.7%;124 of 150; 95% CI: 75.8, 87.9) matched the average detection performance of radiologists independent of their experience (senior radiologists, 89.3% [134 of 150; 95% CI: 83.4, 93.3]; attending physicians, 80.0% [120 of 150; 95% CI: 72.9, 85.6]; residents, 80.0% [120 of 150; 95% CI: 72.9, 85.6]; P value range, .522-.99). One senior radiologist outperformed GPT-4 (detection rate, 94.7%; 142 of 150; 95% CI: 89.8, 97.3; P = .006). GPT-4 required less processing time per radiology report than the fastest human reader in the study (mean reading time, 3.5 seconds ± 0.5 [SD] vs 25.1 seconds ± 20.1, respectively; P < .001; Cohen d = -1.08). The use of GPT-4 resulted in lower mean correction cost per report than the most cost-efficient radiologist ($0.03 ± 0.01 vs $0.42 ± 0.41; P < .001; Cohen d = -1.12). Conclusion The radiology report error detection rate of GPT-4 was comparable with that of radiologists, potentially reducing work hours and cost. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Forman in this issue.

Planetary Health and Radiology: Why We Should Care and What We Can Do.

Climate change adversely affects the well-being of humans and the entire planet. A planetary health framework recognizes that sustaining a healthy planet is essential to achieving individual, community, and global health. Radiology contributes to the climate crisis by generating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the production and use of medical imaging equipment and supplies. To promote planetary health, strategies that mitigate and adapt to climate change in radiology are needed. Mitigation strategies to reduce GHG emissions include switching to renewable energy sources, refurbishing rather than replacing imaging scanners, and powering down unused scanners. Radiology departments must also build resiliency to the now unavoidable impacts of the climate crisis. Adaptation strategies include education, upgrading building infrastructure, and developing departmental sustainability dashboards to track progress in achieving sustainability goals. Shifting practices to catalyze these necessary changes in radiology requires a coordinated approach. This includes partnering with key stakeholders, providing effective communication, and prioritizing high-impact interventions. This article reviews the intersection of planetary health and radiology. Its goals are to emphasize why we should care about sustainability, showcase actions we can take to mitigate our impact, and prepare us to adapt to the effects of climate change. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the article by Ibrahim et al in this issue. See also the article by Lenkinski and Rofsky in this issue.

Strategies for Implementing Machine Learning Algorithms in the Clinical Practice of Radiology.

Despite recent advancements in machine learning (ML) applications in health care, there have been few benefits and improvements to clinical medicine in the hospital setting. To facilitate clinical adaptation of methods in ML, this review proposes a standardized framework for the step-by-step implementation of artificial intelligence into the clinical practice of radiology that focuses on three key components: problem identification, stakeholder alignment, and pipeline integration. A review of the recent literature and empirical evidence in radiologic imaging applications justifies this approach and offers a discussion on structuring implementation efforts to help other hospital practices leverage ML to improve patient care. Clinical trial registration no. 04242667 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Chatbots and Large Language Models in Radiology: A Practical Primer for Clinical and Research Applications.

Although chatbots have existed for decades, the emergence of transformer-based large language models (LLMs) has captivated the world through the most recent wave of artificial intelligence chatbots, including ChatGPT. Transformers are a type of neural network architecture that enables better contextual understanding of language and efficient training on massive amounts of unlabeled data, such as unstructured text from the internet. As LLMs have increased in size, their improved performance and emergent abilities have revolutionized natural language processing. Since language is integral to human thought, applications based on LLMs have transformative potential in many industries. In fact, LLM-based chatbots have demonstrated human-level performance on many professional benchmarks, including in radiology. LLMs offer numerous clinical and research applications in radiology, several of which have been explored in the literature with encouraging results. Multimodal LLMs can simultaneously interpret text and images to generate reports, closely mimicking current diagnostic pathways in radiology. Thus, from requisition to report, LLMs have the opportunity to positively impact nearly every step of the radiology journey. Yet, these impressive models are not without limitations. This article reviews the limitations of LLMs and mitigation strategies, as well as potential uses of LLMs, including multimodal models. Also reviewed are existing LLM-based applications that can enhance efficiency in supervised settings.

Environmental Sustainability and AI in Radiology: A Double-Edged Sword.

According to the World Health Organization, climate change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity. The global health care system, including medical imaging, must manage the health effects of climate change while at the same time addressing the large amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated in the delivery of care. Data centers and computational efforts are increasingly large contributors to GHG emissions in radiology. This is due to the explosive increase in big data and artificial intelligence (AI) applications that have resulted in large energy requirements for developing and deploying AI models. However, AI also has the potential to improve environmental sustainability in medical imaging. For example, use of AI can shorten MRI scan times with accelerated acquisition times, improve the scheduling efficiency of scanners, and optimize the use of decision-support tools to reduce low-value imaging. The purpose of this Radiology in Focus article is to discuss this duality at the intersection of environmental sustainability and AI in radiology. Further discussed are strategies and opportunities to decrease AI-related emissions and to leverage AI to improve sustainability in radiology, with a focus on health equity. Co-benefits of these strategies are explored, including lower cost and improved patient outcomes. Finally, knowledge gaps and areas for future research are highlighted.

Assessment of Claimant, Clinical, and Financial Characteristics of Teleradiology Medical Malpractice Cases.

Background The increasing use of teleradiology has been accompanied by concerns relating to risk management and patient safety. Purpose To compare characteristics of teleradiology and nonteleradiology radiology malpractice cases and identify contributing factors underlying these cases. Materials and Methods In this retrospective analysis, a national database of medical malpractice cases was queried to identify cases involving telemedicine that closed between January 2010 and March 2022. Teleradiology malpractice cases were identified based on manual review of cases in which telemedicine was coded as one of the contributing factors. These cases were compared with nonteleradiology cases that closed during the same time period in which radiology had been determined to be the primary responsible clinical service. Claimant, clinical, and financial characteristics of the cases were recorded, and continuous or categorical data were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Fisher exact test, respectively. Results This study included 135 teleradiology and 3474 radiology malpractices cases. The death of a patient occurred more frequently in teleradiology cases (48 of 135 [35.6%]) than in radiology cases (685 of 3474 [19.7%]; P < .001). Cerebrovascular disease was a more common final diagnosis in the teleradiology cases (13 of 135 [9.6%]) compared with the radiology cases (124 of 3474 [3.6%]; P = .002). Problems with communication among providers was a more frequent contributing factor in the teleradiology cases (35 of 135 [25.9%]) than in the radiology cases (439 of 3474 [12.6%]; P < .001). Teleradiology cases were more likely to close with indemnity payment (79 of 135 [58.5%]) than the radiology cases (1416 of 3474 [40.8%]; P < .001) and had a higher median indemnity payment than the radiology cases ($339 230 [IQR, $120 790-$731 615] vs $214 063 [IQR, $66 620-$585 424]; P = .01). Conclusion Compared with radiology cases, teleradiology cases had higher clinical and financial severity and were more likely to involve issues with communication. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mezrich in this issue.

Assessing Authorship Rates over Time in Original Radiologic Research Publications.

Background Previous studies have shown an increase in the number of authors on radiologic articles between 1950 and 2013, but the cause is unclear. Purpose To determine whether authorship rate in radiologic and general medical literature has continued to increase and to assess study variables associated with increased author numbers. Materials and Methods PubMed/Medline was searched for articles published between January 1998 and October 2022 in general radiology and general medical journals with the top five highest current impact factors. Generalized linear regression analysis was used to calculate adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the numbers of authors. Wald tests assessed the associations between study variables and the numbers of authors per article. Combined mixed-effects regression analysis was performed to compare general medicine and radiology journals. Results There were 3381 original radiologic research articles that were analyzed. Authorship rate increased between 1998 (median, six authors; IQR, 4) and 2022 (median, 11 authors; IQR, 8). Later publication year was associated with more authors per article (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02; P < .001) after adjusting for publishing journal, continent of origin of first author, number of countries involved, PubMed/Medline original article type, study design, number of disciplines involved, multicenter or single-center study, reporting of a priori power calculation, reporting of obtaining informed consent, study sample size, and number of article pages. There were 1250 general medicine original research articles that were analyzed. Later publication year was also associated with more authors after adjustment for the study variables (IRR, 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.05; P < .001). There was a stronger increase in authorship by publication year for general medicine journals compared with radiology journals (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02; P < .001). Conclusion An increase in authorship rate was observed in the radiologic and general medical literature between 1998 and 2022, and the number of authors per article was independently associated with later year of publication. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Arrivé in this issue.

Assessing the Relationship between Radiology Department Research Funding and Institutional Community Inclusion and Investment.

Background Health care access disparities and lack of inclusion in clinical research have been well documented for marginalized populations. However, few studies exist examining the research funding of institutions that serve historically underserved groups. Purpose To assess the relationship between research funding awarded to radiology departments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included radiology departments awarded funding from the NIH between 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit were examined. The inclusivity metric measures how similar a hospital's patient population is to the surrounding community in terms of income, race and ethnicity, and education level. The community benefit metric measures charity care spending, Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue, and other community benefit spending. Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to evaluate the relationship between aggregate NIH radiology department research funding and measures of inclusivity and community benefit. Results Seventy-five radiology departments that received NIH funding ranging from $195 000 to $216 879 079 were included. A negative correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding received and institutional rankings for serving patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities (r = -0.34; P < .001), patients with low income (r = -0.44; P < .001), and patients with lower levels of education (r = -0.46; P < .001). No correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding and institutional rankings for charity care spending (r = -0.19; P = .06), community investment (r = -0.04; P = .68), and Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue (r = -0.10; P = .22). Conclusion Radiology departments that received more NIH research funding were less likely to serve patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities and patients who had low income or lower levels of education. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mehta and Rosen in this issue.

Evaluation of Reliability, Repeatability, Robustness, and Confidence of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on a Radiology Board-style Examination.

Background ChatGPT (OpenAI) can pass a text-based radiology board-style examination, but its stochasticity and confident language when it is incorrect may limit utility. Purpose To assess the reliability, repeatability, robustness, and confidence of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 (ChatGPT; OpenAI) through repeated prompting with a radiology board-style examination. Materials and Methods In this exploratory prospective study, 150 radiology board-style multiple-choice text-based questions, previously used to benchmark ChatGPT, were administered to default versions of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) on three separate attempts (separated by ≥1 month and then 1 week). Accuracy and answer choices between attempts were compared to assess reliability (accuracy over time) and repeatability (agreement over time). On the third attempt, regardless of answer choice, ChatGPT was challenged three times with the adversarial prompt, "Your answer choice is incorrect. Please choose a different option," to assess robustness (ability to withstand adversarial prompting). ChatGPT was prompted to rate its confidence from 1-10 (with 10 being the highest level of confidence and 1 being the lowest) on the third attempt and after each challenge prompt. Results Neither version showed a difference in accuracy over three attempts: for the first, second, and third attempt, accuracy of GPT-3.5 was 69.3% (104 of 150), 63.3% (95 of 150), and 60.7% (91 of 150), respectively (P = .06); and accuracy of GPT-4 was 80.6% (121 of 150), 78.0% (117 of 150), and 76.7% (115 of 150), respectively (P = .42). Though both GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 had only moderate intrarater agreement (κ = 0.78 and 0.64, respectively), the answer choices of GPT-4 were more consistent across three attempts than those of GPT-3.5 (agreement, 76.7% [115 of 150] vs 61.3% [92 of 150], respectively; P = .006). After challenge prompt, both changed responses for most questions, though GPT-4 did so more frequently than GPT-3.5 (97.3% [146 of 150] vs 71.3% [107 of 150], respectively; P < .001). Both rated "high confidence" (≥8 on the 1-10 scale) for most initial responses (GPT-3.5, 100% [150 of 150]; and GPT-4, 94.0% [141 of 150]) as well as for incorrect responses (ie, overconfidence; GPT-3.5, 100% [59 of 59]; and GPT-4, 77% [27 of 35], respectively; P = .89). Conclusion Default GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 were reliably accurate across three attempts, but both had poor repeatability and robustness and were frequently overconfident. GPT-4 was more consistent across attempts than GPT-3.5 but more influenced by an adversarial prompt. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Ballard in this issue.

Photon-counting CT in Thoracic Imaging: Early Clinical Evidence and Incorporation Into Clinical Practice.

Photon-counting CT (PCCT) is an emerging advanced CT technology that differs from conventional CT in its ability to directly convert incident x-ray photon energies into electrical signals. The detector design also permits substantial improvements in spatial resolution and radiation dose efficiency and allows for concurrent high-pitch and high-temporal-resolution multienergy imaging. This review summarizes (a) key differences in PCCT image acquisition and image reconstruction compared with conventional CT; (b) early evidence for the clinical benefit of PCCT for high-spatial-resolution diagnostic tasks in thoracic imaging, such as assessment of airway and parenchymal diseases, as well as benefits of high-pitch and multienergy scanning; (c) anticipated radiation dose reduction, depending on the diagnostic task, and increased utility for routine low-dose thoracic CT imaging; (d) adaptations for thoracic imaging in children; (e) potential for further quantitation of thoracic diseases; and (f) limitations and trade-offs. Moreover, important points for conducting and interpreting clinical studies examining the benefit of PCCT relative to conventional CT and integration of PCCT systems into multivendor, multispecialty radiology practices are discussed.

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.

The Role of Imaging for GI Bleeding: ACG and SAR Consensus Recommendations.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high health care utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including CT angiography, catheter angiography, CT enterography, MR enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist, which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided. © Radiological Society of North America and the American College of Gastroenterology, 2024. Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is being published concurrently in American Journal of Gastroenterology and Radiology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Citations from either journal can be used when citing this article. See also the editorial by Lockhart in this issue.

Improving Prognostication in Pulmonary Hypertension Using AI-quantified Fibrosis and Radiologic Severity Scoring at Baseline CT.

Background There is clinical need to better quantify lung disease severity in pulmonary hypertension (PH), particularly in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) and PH associated with lung disease (PH-LD). Purpose To quantify fibrosis on CT pulmonary angiograms using an artificial intelligence (AI) model and to assess whether this approach can be used in combination with radiologic scoring to predict survival. Materials and Methods This retrospective multicenter study included adult patients with IPAH or PH-LD who underwent incidental CT imaging between February 2007 and January 2019. Patients were divided into training and test cohorts based on the institution of imaging. The test cohort included imaging examinations performed in 37 external hospitals. Fibrosis was quantified using an established AI model and radiologically scored by radiologists. Multivariable Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, World Health Organization functional class, pulmonary vascular resistance, and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide was performed. The performance of predictive models with or without AI-quantified fibrosis was assessed using the concordance index (C index). Results The training and test cohorts included 275 (median age, 68 years [IQR, 60-75 years]; 128 women) and 246 (median age, 65 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 142 women) patients, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that AI-quantified percentage of fibrosis was associated with an increased risk of patient mortality in the training cohort (hazard ratio, 1.01 [95% CI: 1.00, 1.02]; P = .04). This finding was validated in the external test cohort (C index, 0.76). The model combining AI-quantified fibrosis and radiologic scoring showed improved performance for predicting patient mortality compared with a model including radiologic scoring alone (C index, 0.67 vs 0.61; P < .001). Conclusion Percentage of lung fibrosis quantified on CT pulmonary angiograms by an AI model was associated with increased risk of mortality and showed improved performance for predicting patient survival when used in combination with radiologic severity scoring compared with radiologic scoring alone. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

In Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma, Which Response is the More Reliable Indicator for Prognosis, Radiologic or Biochemical?

BACKGROUND: In this era of increasing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, methods for evaluating responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy are still diverse among institutions. Additionally, the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains unclear. Therefore, this retrospective study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of methods for assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the need for adjuvant chemotherapy in treating patients with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The study identified 150 patients who underwent neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by curative-intent pancreatectomy. The patients were stratified by biochemical response based on the normalization of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and by radiologic response based on size change at imaging. RESULTS: The patients were classified into the following three groups based on their response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and prognosis: biochemical responders (BR+), radiology-only responders (BR-/RR+), and non-responders (BR-/RR-). The 3-year overall survival rate was higher for BR+ (71.0%) than for BR-/RR+ (53.6%) or BR-/RR- (33.1%) (P < 0.001). Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy also was identified as a significant risk factor for recurrence in a comparison between BR-/RR+ and BR+ (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19-3.88; P = 0.011) and BR-/RR- (HR, 3.82; 95% CI 2.41-6.08; P < 0.001). Additionally, regardless of the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had a significantly higher 3-year overall survival rate than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: This response evaluation criterion for neoadjuvant chemotherapy is feasible and can significantly predict prognosis. Additionally, completion of adjuvant chemotherapy could be helpful to patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy regardless of their response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Anastomosing haemangioma of the mediastinum: Clinicopathological series with radiological and genetic characterisation.

AIMS: Anastomosing haemangiomas are benign tumours with anastomosing vascular channels that may mimic angiosarcoma. While anastomosing haemangiomas have been described in diverse locations, particularly the abdominal/paraspinal region, data on anastomosing haemangiomas in the mediastinum remain limited. We report the clinicopathological, radiological and molecular characteristics of the largest single-institutional series of mediastinal anastomosing haemangiomas. METHODS AND RESULTS: In our pathology archives in 2011-23, we reviewed all vascular lesions involving the mediastinum and identified seven anastomosing haemangiomas. Clinical information was abstracted from medical charts; available radiological imaging was reviewed. Targeted DNA-based next-generation sequencing (447 genes, including GNAQ and GNA11) was performed on five cases. The seven patients included five women and two men, with an age range of 55-77 (median = 72) years. Of the six tumours with available radiology, two each were in the prevascular, visceral and paravertebral mediastinum, with lobulated peripheral enhancement in all tumours examined with contrast enhancement. Six patients underwent tumour resection; one patient received proton radiotherapy. Microscopically, each tumour was solitary and characterised by anastomosing capillary-sized vessels lined by hobnail endothelial cells. Fibrin microthrombi, hyaline globules and extramedullary haematopoiesis were common. In the five tumours analysed by next-generation sequencing, GNAQ p.Q209P was identified in one tumour; no additional reportable alterations were identified in the remaining cases. No recurrence was noted in the four patients with available follow-up of 3-58 (median = 9.5) months after resection. CONCLUSION: While mediastinal anastomosing haemangiomas can microscopically mimic angiosarcoma, awareness of this entity and radiological correlation may help to circumvent this diagnostic pitfall.

A Survey of Publicly Available MRI Datasets for Potential Use in Artificial Intelligence Research.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to bring transformative improvements to the field of radiology; yet, there are barriers to widespread clinical adoption. One of the most important barriers has been access to large, well-annotated, widely representative medical image datasets, which can be used to accurately train AI programs. Creating such datasets requires time and expertise and runs into constraints around data security and interoperability, patient privacy, and appropriate data use. Recognizing these challenges, several institutions have started curating and providing publicly available, high-quality datasets that can be accessed by researchers to advance AI models. The purpose of this work was to review the publicly available MRI datasets that can be used for AI research in radiology. Despite being an emerging field, a simple internet search for open MRI datasets presents an overwhelming number of results. Therefore, we decided to create a survey of the major publicly accessible MRI datasets in different subfields of radiology (brain, body, and musculoskeletal), and list the most important features of value to the AI researcher. To complete this review, we searched for publicly available MRI datasets and assessed them based on several parameters (number of subjects, demographics, area of interest, technical features, and annotations). We reviewed 110 datasets across sub-fields with 1,686,245 subjects in 12 different areas of interest ranging from spine to cardiac. This review is meant to serve as a reference for researchers to help spur advancements in the field of AI for radiology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.

Clinical use of artificial intelligence products for radiology in the Netherlands between 2020 and 2022.

OBJECTIVES: To map the clinical use of CE-marked artificial intelligence (AI)-based software in radiology departments in the Netherlands (n = 69) between 2020 and 2022. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our AI network (one radiologist or AI representative per Dutch hospital organization) received a questionnaire each spring from 2020 to 2022 about AI product usage, financing, and obstacles to adoption. Products that were not listed on www.AIforRadiology.com by July 2022 were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: The number of respondents was 43 in 2020, 36 in 2021, and 33 in 2022. The number of departments using AI has been growing steadily (2020: 14, 2021: 19, 2022: 23). The diversity (2020: 7, 2021: 18, 2022: 34) and the number of total implementations (2020: 19, 2021: 38, 2022: 68) has rapidly increased. Seven implementations were discontinued in 2022. Four hospital organizations said to use an AI platform or marketplace for the deployment of AI solutions. AI is mostly used to support chest CT (17), neuro CT (17), and musculoskeletal radiograph (12) analysis. The budget for AI was reserved in 13 of the responding centers in both 2021 and 2022. The most important obstacles to the adoption of AI remained costs and IT integration. Of the respondents, 28% stated that the implemented AI products realized health improvement and 32% assumed both health improvement and cost savings. CONCLUSION: The adoption of AI products in radiology departments in the Netherlands is showing common signs of a developing market. The major obstacles to reaching widespread adoption are a lack of financial resources and IT integration difficulties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The clinical impact of AI starts with its adoption in daily clinical practice. Increased transparency around AI products being adopted, implementation obstacles, and impact may inspire increased collaboration and improved decision-making around the implementation and financing of AI products. KEY POINTS: • The adoption of artificial intelligence products for radiology has steadily increased since 2020 to at least a third of the centers using AI in clinical practice in the Netherlands in 2022. • The main areas in which artificial intelligence products are used are lung nodule detection on CT, aided stroke diagnosis, and bone age prediction. • The majority of respondents experienced added value (decreased costs and/or improved outcomes) from using artificial intelligence-based software; however, major obstacles to adoption remain the costs and IT-related difficulties.

Trust and stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of AI tools in clinical radiology.

OBJECTIVES: To define requirements that condition trust in artificial intelligence (AI) as clinical decision support in radiology from the perspective of various stakeholders and to explore ways to fulfil these requirements. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-five respondents-nineteen directly involved in the development, implementation, or use of AI applications in radiology and six working with AI in other areas of healthcare. We designed the questions to explore three themes: development and use of AI, professional decision-making, and management and organizational procedures connected to AI. The transcribed interviews were analysed in an iterative coding process from open coding to theoretically informed thematic coding. RESULTS: We identified four aspects of trust that relate to reliability, transparency, quality verification, and inter-organizational compatibility. These aspects fall under the categories of substantial and procedural requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Development of appropriate levels of trust in AI in healthcare is complex and encompasses multiple dimensions of requirements. Various stakeholders will have to be involved in developing AI solutions for healthcare and radiology to fulfil these requirements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For AI to achieve advances in radiology, it must be given the opportunity to support, rather than replace, human expertise. Support requires trust. Identification of aspects and conditions for trust allows developing AI implementation strategies that facilitate advancing the field. KEY POINTS: • Dimensions of procedural and substantial demands that need to be fulfilled to foster appropriate levels of trust in AI in healthcare are conditioned on aspects related to reliability, transparency, quality verification, and inter-organizational compatibility. •Creating the conditions for trust to emerge requires the involvement of various stakeholders, who will have to compensate the problem's inherent complexity by finding and promoting well-defined solutions.