RESUMO
Background: precision-medicine quantitative tools for cross-sectional imaging require painstaking labeling of targets that vary considerably in volume, prohibiting scaling of data annotation efforts and supervised training to large datasets for robust and generalizable clinical performance. A straight-forward time-saving strategy involves manual editing of AI-generated labels, which we call AI-collaborative labeling (AICL). Factors affecting the efficacy and utility of such an approach are unknown. Reduction in time effort is not well documented. Further, edited AI labels may be prone to automation bias. Purpose: In this pilot, using a cohort of CTs with intracavitary hemorrhage, we evaluate both time savings and AICL label quality and propose criteria that must be met for using AICL annotations as a high-throughput, high-quality ground truth. Methods: 57 CT scans of patients with traumatic intracavitary hemorrhage were included. No participant recruited for this study had previously interpreted the scans. nnU-net models trained on small existing datasets for each feature (hemothorax/hemoperitoneum/pelvic hematoma; n = 77-253) were used in inference. Two common scenarios served as baseline comparison- de novo expert manual labeling, and expert edits of trained staff labels. Parameters included time effort and image quality graded by a blinded independent expert using a 9-point scale. The observer also attempted to discriminate AICL and expert labels in a random subset (n = 18). Data were compared with ANOVA and post-hoc paired signed rank tests with Bonferroni correction. Results: AICL reduced time effort 2.8-fold compared to staff label editing, and 8.7-fold compared to expert labeling (corrected p < 0.0006). Mean Likert grades for AICL (8.4, SD:0.6) were significantly higher than for expert labels (7.8, SD:0.9) and edited staff labels (7.7, SD:0.8) (corrected p < 0.0006). The independent observer failed to correctly discriminate AI and human labels. Conclusion: For our use case and annotators, AICL facilitates rapid large-scale curation of high-quality ground truth. The proposed quality control regime can be employed by other investigators prior to embarking on AICL for segmentation tasks in large datasets.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Rapid automated CT volumetry of pulmonary contusion may predict progression to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and help guide early clinical management in at-risk trauma patients. This study aims to train and validate state-of-the-art deep learning models to quantify pulmonary contusion as a percentage of total lung volume (Lung Contusion Index, or auto-LCI) and assess the relationship between auto-LCI and relevant clinical outcomes. METHODS: 302 adult patients (age ≥ 18) with pulmonary contusion were retrospectively identified from reports between 2016 and 2021. nnU-Net was trained on manual contusion and whole-lung segmentations. Point-of-care candidate variables for multivariate regression included oxygen saturation, heart rate, and systolic blood pressure on admission. Logistic regression was used to assess ARDS risk, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine differences in ICU length of stay and mechanical ventilation time. RESULTS: Mean Volume Similarity Index and mean Dice scores were 0.82 and 0.67. Interclass correlation coefficient and Pearson r between ground-truth and predicted volumes were 0.90 and 0.91. 38 (14%) patients developed ARDS. In bivariate analysis, auto-LCI was associated with ARDS (p < 0.001), ICU admission (p < 0.001), and need for mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, auto-LCI was associated with ARDS (p = 0.04), longer length of stay in the ICU (p = 0.02) and longer time on mechanical ventilation (p = 0.04). AUC of multivariate regression to predict ARDS using auto-LCI and clinical variables was 0.70 while AUC using auto-LCI alone was 0.68. CONCLUSION: Increasing auto-LCI values corresponded with increased risk of ARDS, longer ICU admissions, and longer periods of mechanical ventilation.
