S Miki1, N Hayashi2, Y Masutani3, Y Nomura2, T Yoshikawa2, S Hanaoka4, M Nemoto2, K Ohtomo4. 1. From the Departments of Computational Diagnostic Radiology and Preventive Medicine (S.M., N.H., Y.N., T.Y., M.N.) smiki-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. From the Departments of Computational Diagnostic Radiology and Preventive Medicine (S.M., N.H., Y.N., T.Y., M.N.). 3. Faculty of Information Sciences and Graduate School of Information Sciences (Y.M.), Hiroshima City University, Hiroshima, Japan. 4. Radiology (S.H., K.O.), The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Experiences with computer-assisted detection of cerebral aneurysms in diagnosis by radiologists in real-life clinical environments have not been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of computer-assisted detection in a routine reading environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During 39 months in a routine clinical practice environment, 2701 MR angiograms were each read by 2 radiologists by using a computer-assisted detection system. Initial interpretation was independently made without using the detection system, followed by a possible alteration of diagnosis after referring to the lesion candidate output from the system. We used the final consensus of the 2 radiologists as the reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity of radiologists before and after seeing the lesion candidates were evaluated by aneurysm- and patient-based analyses. RESULTS: The use of the computer-assisted detection system increased the number of detected aneurysms by 9.3% (from 258 to 282). Aneurysm-based analysis revealed that the apparent sensitivity of the radiologists' diagnoses made without and with the detection system was 64% and 69%, respectively. The detection system presented 82% of the aneurysms. The detection system more frequently benefited radiologists than being detrimental. CONCLUSIONS: Routine integration of computer-assisted detection with MR angiography for cerebral aneurysms is feasible, and radiologists can detect a number of additional cerebral aneurysms by using the detection system without a substantial decrease in their specificity. The low confidence of radiologists in the system may limit its usefulness.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Experiences with computer-assisted detection of cerebral aneurysms in diagnosis by radiologists in real-life clinical environments have not been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of computer-assisted detection in a routine reading environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During 39 months in a routine clinical practice environment, 2701 MR angiograms were each read by 2 radiologists by using a computer-assisted detection system. Initial interpretation was independently made without using the detection system, followed by a possible alteration of diagnosis after referring to the lesion candidate output from the system. We used the final consensus of the 2 radiologists as the reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity of radiologists before and after seeing the lesion candidates were evaluated by aneurysm- and patient-based analyses. RESULTS: The use of the computer-assisted detection system increased the number of detected aneurysms by 9.3% (from 258 to 282). Aneurysm-based analysis revealed that the apparent sensitivity of the radiologists' diagnoses made without and with the detection system was 64% and 69%, respectively. The detection system presented 82% of the aneurysms. The detection system more frequently benefited radiologists than being detrimental. CONCLUSIONS: Routine integration of computer-assisted detection with MR angiography for cerebral aneurysms is feasible, and radiologists can detect a number of additional cerebral aneurysms by using the detection system without a substantial decrease in their specificity. The low confidence of radiologists in the system may limit its usefulness.
Authors: Joshua B Bederson; E Sander Connolly; H Hunt Batjer; Ralph G Dacey; Jacques E Dion; Michael N Diringer; John E Duldner; Robert E Harbaugh; Aman B Patel; Robert H Rosenwasser Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Y Korogi; M Takahashi; N Mabuchi; T Nakagawa; S Fujiwara; Y Horikawa; H Miki; T O'Uchi; H Shiga; Y Shiokawa; T Watabe; M Furuse Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Z Shi; B Hu; U J Schoepf; R H Savage; D M Dargis; C W Pan; X L Li; Q Q Ni; G M Lu; L J Zhang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B Sohn; K-Y Park; J Choi; J H Koo; K Han; B Joo; S Y Won; J Cha; H S Choi; S-K Lee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Bio Joo; Hyun Seok Choi; Sung Soo Ahn; Jihoon Cha; So Yeon Won; Beomseok Sohn; Hwiyoung Kim; Kyunghwa Han; Hwa Pyung Kim; Jong Mun Choi; Sang Min Lee; Tae Gyu Kim; Seung-Koo Lee Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 2.759