An Artificial Intelligence Model Based on ACR TI-RADS Characteristics for US Diagnosis of Thyroid Nodules.

Background US-based diagnosis of thyroid nodules is subjective and influenced by radiologists' experience levels. Purpose To develop an artificial intelligence model based on American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System characteristics for diagnosing thyroid nodules and identifying nodule characteristics (hereafter, MTI-RADS) and to compare the performance of MTI-RADS, radiologists, and a model trained on benign and malignant status based on surgical histopathologic analysis (hereafter, MDiag). Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, 1588 surgically proven nodules from 636 consecutive patients (mean age, 49 years ± 14 [SD]; 485 women) were included. MTI-RADS and MDiag were trained on US images of 1345 nodules (January 2018 to December 2019). The performance of MTI-RADS was compared with that of MDiag and radiologists with different experience levels on the test data set (243 nodules, January 2019 to December 2019) with the DeLong method and McNemar test. Results The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and sensitivity of MTI-RADS were 0.91 and 83% (55 of 66 nodules), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of experienced radiologists (0.93 [P = .45] and 92% [61 of 66 nodules; P = .07]) and exceeded those of junior radiologists (0.78 [P < .001] and 70% [46 of 66 nodules; P = .04]). The specificity of MTI-RADS (87% [154 of 177 nodules]) was higher than that of both experienced and junior radiologists (80% [141 of 177 nodules; P = .02] and 75% [133 of 177 nodules; P = .001], respectively). The AUC of MTI-RADS was higher than that of MDiag (0.91 vs 0.84, respectively; P = .001). In the test set of 243 nodules, the consistency rates between MTI-RADS and the experienced group were higher than those between MTI-RADS and the junior group for composition (79% [n = 193] vs 73% [n = 178], respectively; P = .02), echogenicity (75% [n = 183] vs 68% [n = 166]; P = .04), shape (93% [n = 227] vs 88% [n = 215]; P = .04), and smooth or ill-defined margin (72% [n = 174] vs 63% [n = 152]; P = .002). Conclusion The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of an artificial intelligence model based on the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) was higher than that of a model trained on benign and malignant status based on surgical histopathologic analysis. The AUC and sensitivity of the model based on TI-RADS exceeded those of junior radiologists; the specificity of the model was higher than that of both experienced and junior radiologists. © RSNA, 2022.

The value of the Demetics ultrasound-assisted diagnosis system in the differential diagnosis of benign from malignant thyroid nodules and analysis of the influencing factors.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the value of Demetics and to explore whether Demetics can help radiologists with varying years of experience in the differential diagnosis of benign from malignant thyroid nodules. METHODS: The clinical application value of Demetics was assessed by comparing the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists before and after applying Demetics. This retrospective analysis included 284 thyroid nodules that underwent pathological examinations. Two different combined methods were applied. Using method 1: the original TI-RADS classification was forcibly upgraded or downgraded by one level when Demetics classified the thyroid nodules as malignant or benign. Using method 2: the TI-RADS and benign or malignant classification of the thyroid nodules were flexibly adjusted after the physician learned the Demetics' results. RESULTS: Demetics exhibited a higher sensitivity than did junior radiologist 1 (pD1 = 0.029) and was similar in sensitivity to the two senior radiologists. Demetics had a higher AUC than both junior radiologists (pD1 = 0.042, pD2 = 0.038) and an AUC similar to that of the senior radiologists. The sensitivity (p = 0.035) and AUC (p = 0.031) of junior radiologist 1 and the specificity (p < 0.001) and AUC (p = 0.026) of junior radiologist 2 improved with combined method 1. The AUC of junior radiologist 2 improved with combined method 2 (p = 0.045). The factors influencing the diagnostic results of Demetics include sonographic signs (echogenicity and echogenic foci), contrast of the image, and nodule size. CONCLUSION: Demetics exhibited high sensitivity and accuracy in the differential diagnosis of benign from malignant thyroid nodules. Demetics could improve the diagnostic accuracy of junior radiologists. KEY POINTS: • Demetics exhibited a high sensitivity and accuracy in the differential diagnosis of benign from malignant thyroid nodules. • Demetics could improve the diagnostic accuracy of junior radiologists in the differential diagnosis of benign from malignant thyroid nodules. • Factors influencing the diagnostic results of Demetics include the sonographic signs (echogenicity and echogenic foci), contrast of the image, and nodule size.