Journal of neuroradiology = Journal de neuroradiologie · 2025
AI-assisted detection of cerebral aneurysms on 3D time-of-flight MR angiography: User variability and clinical implications.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liao Liang, Puel Ulysse, Sabardu Ophélie, Harsan Oana, Medeiros Luana Lopes De, Loukoul Wassim Abou, Anxionnat René, Kerrien Erwan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The generalizability and reproducibility of AI-assisted detection for cerebral aneurysms on 3D time-of-flight MR angiography remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate physician performance using AI assistance, focusing on inter- and intra-user variability, identifying factors influencing performance and clinical implications.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, four state-of-the-art AI models were hyperparameter-optimized on an in-house dataset (2019-2021) and evaluated via 5-fold cross-validation on a public external dataset. The two best-performing models were selected for evaluation on an expert-revised external dataset.
INCLUSION: saccular aneurysms without prior treatment. Five physicians, grouped by expertise, each performed two AI-assisted evaluations, one with each model. Lesion-wise sensitivity and false positives per case (FPs/case) were calculated for each physician-AI pair and AI models alone. Agreement was assessed using kappa. Aneurysm size comparisons used the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: The in-house dataset included 132 patients with 206 aneurysms (mean size: 4.0 mm); the revised external dataset, 270 patients with 174 aneurysms (mean size: 3.7 mm). Standalone AI achieved 86.8 % sensitivity and 0.58 FPs/case. With AI assistance, non-experts achieved 72.1 % sensitivity and 0.037 FPs/case; experts, 88.6 % and 0.076 FPs/case; the intermediate-level physician, 78.5 % and 0.037 FPs/case. Intra-group agreement was 80 % for non-experts (kappa: 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.54-0.59) and 77.7 % for experts (kappa: 0.53, 95 % CI: 0.51-0.55). In experts, false positives were smaller than true positives (2.7 vs. 3.8 mm, p < 0.001); no difference in non-experts (p = 0.09). Missed aneurysm locations were mainly model-dependent, while true- and false-positive locations reflected physician expertise. Non-experts more often rejected AI suggestions and added fewer annotations; experts were more conservative and added more.
CONCLUSION: Evaluating AI models in isolation provides an incomplete view of their clinical applicability. Detection performance and patterns differ between standalone AI and AI-assisted use, and are modulated by physician expertise. Rigorous external validation is essential before clinical deployment.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, four state-of-the-art AI models were hyperparameter-optimized on an in-house dataset (2019-2021) and evaluated via 5-fold cross-validation on a public external dataset. The two best-performing models were selected for evaluation on an expert-revised external dataset.
INCLUSION: saccular aneurysms without prior treatment. Five physicians, grouped by expertise, each performed two AI-assisted evaluations, one with each model. Lesion-wise sensitivity and false positives per case (FPs/case) were calculated for each physician-AI pair and AI models alone. Agreement was assessed using kappa. Aneurysm size comparisons used the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: The in-house dataset included 132 patients with 206 aneurysms (mean size: 4.0 mm); the revised external dataset, 270 patients with 174 aneurysms (mean size: 3.7 mm). Standalone AI achieved 86.8 % sensitivity and 0.58 FPs/case. With AI assistance, non-experts achieved 72.1 % sensitivity and 0.037 FPs/case; experts, 88.6 % and 0.076 FPs/case; the intermediate-level physician, 78.5 % and 0.037 FPs/case. Intra-group agreement was 80 % for non-experts (kappa: 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.54-0.59) and 77.7 % for experts (kappa: 0.53, 95 % CI: 0.51-0.55). In experts, false positives were smaller than true positives (2.7 vs. 3.8 mm, p < 0.001); no difference in non-experts (p = 0.09). Missed aneurysm locations were mainly model-dependent, while true- and false-positive locations reflected physician expertise. Non-experts more often rejected AI suggestions and added fewer annotations; experts were more conservative and added more.
CONCLUSION: Evaluating AI models in isolation provides an incomplete view of their clinical applicability. Detection performance and patterns differ between standalone AI and AI-assisted use, and are modulated by physician expertise. Rigorous external validation is essential before clinical deployment.