RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted image interpretation is a fast-developing area of clinical innovation. Most research to date has focused on the performance of AI-assisted algorithms in comparison with that of radiologists rather than evaluating the algorithms' impact on the clinicians who often undertake initial image interpretation in routine clinical practice. This study assessed the impact of AI-assisted image interpretation on the diagnostic performance of frontline acute care clinicians for the detection of pneumothoraces (PTX). METHODS: A multicentre blinded multi-case multi-reader study was conducted between October 2021 and January 2022. The online study recruited 18 clinician readers from six different clinical specialties, with differing levels of seniority, across four English hospitals. The study included 395 plain CXR images, 189 positive for PTX and 206 negative. The reference standard was the consensus opinion of two thoracic radiologists with a third acting as arbitrator. General Electric Healthcare Critical Care Suite (GEHC CCS) PTX algorithm was applied to the final dataset. Readers individually interpreted the dataset without AI assistance, recording the presence or absence of a PTX and a confidence rating. Following a 'washout' period, this process was repeated including the AI output. RESULTS: Analysis of the performance of the algorithm for detecting or ruling out a PTX revealed an overall AUROC of 0.939. Overall reader sensitivity increased by 11.4% (95% CI 4.8, 18.0, p=0.002) from 66.8% (95% CI 57.3, 76.2) unaided to 78.1% aided (95% CI 72.2, 84.0, p=0.002), specificity 93.9% (95% CI 90.9, 97.0) without AI to 95.8% (95% CI 93.7, 97.9, p=0.247). The junior reader subgroup showed the largest improvement at 21.7% (95% CI 10.9, 32.6), increasing from 56.0% (95% CI 37.7, 74.3) to 77.7% (95% CI 65.8, 89.7, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: The study indicates that AI-assisted image interpretation significantly enhances the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in detecting PTX, particularly benefiting less experienced practitioners. While overall interpretation time remained unchanged, the use of AI improved diagnostic confidence and sensitivity, especially among junior clinicians. These findings underscore the potential of AI to support less skilled clinicians in acute care settings.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial , Neumotórax , Radiografía Torácica , Humanos , Neumotórax/diagnóstico por imagen , Radiografía Torácica/métodos , Algoritmos , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Masculino , Competencia Clínica/normas , FemeninoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) is an established modality for the diagnosis and assessment of cardiovascular disease. However, price and space pressure have mostly necessitated outsourcing CTCA to external radiology providers. Advara HeartCare has recently integrated CT services within local clinical networks across Australia. This study examined the benefits of the presence (integrated) or absence (pre-integrated) of this "in-house" CTCA service in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: De-identified patient data from electronic medical records were used to create an Advara HeartCare CTCA database. Data analysis included clinical history, demographics, CTCA procedure, and 30-day outcomes post-CTCA from two age-matched cohorts: integrated (n â= â495) and pre-integrated (n â= â456). RESULTS: Data capture was more comprehensive and standardised across the integrated cohort. There was a 21% increase in referrals for CTCA from cardiologists observed for the integration cohort vs. pre-integration [n â= â332 (72.8%) pre-integration vs. n â= â465 (93.9%) post-integration, p â< â0.0001] with a parallel increase in diagnostic assessments including blood tests [n â= â209 (45.8%) vs. n â= â387 (78.1%), respectively, p â< â0.0001]. The integrated cohort received lower total dose length product [Median 212 (interquartile range 136-418) mGy∗cm vs. 244 (141.5, 339.3) mGy∗cm, p â= â0.004] during the CTCA procedure. 30-days after CTCA scan, there was a significantly higher use of lipid-lowering therapies in the integrated cohort [n â= â133 (50.5%) vs. n â= â179 (60.6%), p â= â0.04], along with a significant decrease in the number of stress echocardiograms performed [n â= â14 (10.6%) vs. n â= â5 (11.6%), p â= â0.01]. CONCLUSION: Integrated CTCA has salient benefits in patient management, including increased pathology tests, statin usage, and decreased post-CTCA stress echocardiography utilisation. Our ongoing work will examine the effect of integration on cardiovascular outcomes.