Artificial Intelligence System Approaching Neuroradiologist-level Differential Diagnosis Accuracy at Brain MRI.

Background Although artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise across many aspects of radiology, the use of AI to create differential diagnoses for rare and common diseases at brain MRI has not been demonstrated. Purpose To evaluate an AI system for generation of differential diagnoses at brain MRI compared with radiologists. Materials and Methods This retrospective study tested performance of an AI system for probabilistic diagnosis in patients with 19 common and rare diagnoses at brain MRI acquired between January 2008 and January 2018. The AI system combines data-driven and domain-expertise methodologies, including deep learning and Bayesian networks. First, lesions were detected by using deep learning. Then, 18 quantitative imaging features were extracted by using atlas-based coregistration and segmentation. Third, these image features were combined with five clinical features by using Bayesian inference to develop probability-ranked differential diagnoses. Quantitative feature extraction algorithms and conditional probabilities were fine-tuned on a training set of 86 patients (mean age, 49 years ± 16 [standard deviation]; 53 women). Accuracy was compared with radiology residents, general radiologists, neuroradiology fellows, and academic neuroradiologists by using accuracy of top one, top two, and top three differential diagnoses in 92 independent test set patients (mean age, 47 years ± 18; 52 women). Results For accuracy of top three differential diagnoses, the AI system (91% correct) performed similarly to academic neuroradiologists (86% correct; P = .20), and better than radiology residents (56%; P < .001), general radiologists (57%; P < .001), and neuroradiology fellows (77%; P = .003). The performance of the AI system was not affected by disease prevalence (93% accuracy for common vs 85% for rare diseases; P = .26). Radiologists were more accurate at diagnosing common versus rare diagnoses (78% vs 47% across all radiologists; P < .001). Conclusion An artificial intelligence system for brain MRI approached overall top one, top two, and top three differential diagnoses accuracy of neuroradiologists and exceeded that of less-specialized radiologists. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Zaharchuk in this issue.

Subspecialty-Level Deep Gray Matter Differential Diagnoses with Deep Learning and Bayesian Networks on Clinical Brain MRI: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a system that could perform automated diagnosis of common and rare neurologic diseases involving deep gray matter on clinical brain MRI studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, multimodal brain MRI scans from 212 patients (mean age, 55 years ± 17 [standard deviation]; 113 women) with 35 neurologic diseases and normal brain MRI scans obtained between January 2008 and January 2018 were included (110 patients in the training set, 102 patients in the test set). MRI scans from 178 patients (mean age, 48 years ± 17; 106 women) were used to supplement training of the neural networks. Three-dimensional convolutional neural networks and atlas-based image processing were used for extraction of 11 imaging features. Expert-derived Bayesian networks incorporating domain knowledge were used for differential diagnosis generation. The performance of the artificial intelligence (AI) system was assessed by comparing diagnostic accuracy with that of radiologists of varying levels of specialization by using the generalized estimating equation with robust variance estimator for the top three differential diagnoses (T3DDx) and the correct top diagnosis (TDx), as well as with receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: In the held-out test set, the imaging pipeline detected 11 key features on brain MRI scans with 89% accuracy (sensitivity, 81%; specificity, 95%) relative to academic neuroradiologists. The Bayesian network, integrating imaging features with clinical information, had an accuracy of 85% for T3DDx and 64% for TDx, which was better than that of radiology residents (n = 4; 56% for T3DDx, 36% for TDx; P < .001 for both) and general radiologists (n = 2; 53% for T3DDx, 31% for TDx; P < .001 for both). The accuracy of the Bayesian network was better than that of neuroradiology fellows (n = 2) for T3DDx (72%; P = .003) but not for TDx (59%; P = .19) and was not different from that of academic neuroradiologists (n = 2; 84% T3DDx, 65% TDx; P > .09 for both). CONCLUSION: A hybrid AI system was developed that simultaneously provides a quantitative assessment of disease burden, explainable intermediate imaging features, and a probabilistic differential diagnosis that performed at the level of academic neuroradiologists. This type of approach has the potential to improve clinical decision making for common and rare diseases.Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2020.