Johannes Haubold1. 1. Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie und Neuroradiologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Huflandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Deutschland. Johannes.Haubold@uk-essen.de.
Abstract
CLINICAL/METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly used in the field of radiology. The aim of this review is to illustrate the developments expected in the next 5 to 10 years as well as possible advantages and risks. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Currently, all computed tomography (CT) images are reconstructed using programmed algorithms. Pathologies are detected by the radiologist with a high expenditure of time and evaluated using standardized procedures. METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: AI can potentially provide a significant improvement to all these standard procedures in the future. CT reconstructions can be significantly enhanced using generative adversarial networks (GAN). Histology can be evaluated using radiomics or deep learning (DL)-based image analysis and the prognosis of the patient can be predicted highly individualized. PERFORMANCE: The performance of the networks is strongly influenced by data quality and requires extensive validation. The ability and willingness of the manufacturers to integrate these into the existing RIS/PACS systems is also decisive. EVALUATION: AI will have a large impact on the daily clinical work of radiologists. However, publications on the risks of the technology and on adequate validation are still lacking. In addition to opening new fields of application, further research regarding possible risks is warranted. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In the next 5 to 10 years, AI will improve and facilitate work in clinical practice. The integration of the applications into the existing RIS/PACS systems is expected to take place via app stores and/or existing teleradiology networks.
CLINICAL/METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly used in the field of radiology. The aim of this review is to illustrate the developments expected in the next 5 to 10 years as well as possible advantages and risks. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Currently, all computed tomography (CT) images are reconstructed using programmed algorithms. Pathologies are detected by the radiologist with a high expenditure of time and evaluated using standardized procedures. METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS: AI can potentially provide a significant improvement to all these standard procedures in the future. CT reconstructions can be significantly enhanced using generative adversarial networks (GAN). Histology can be evaluated using radiomics or deep learning (DL)-based image analysis and the prognosis of the patient can be predicted highly individualized. PERFORMANCE: The performance of the networks is strongly influenced by data quality and requires extensive validation. The ability and willingness of the manufacturers to integrate these into the existing RIS/PACS systems is also decisive. EVALUATION: AI will have a large impact on the daily clinical work of radiologists. However, publications on the risks of the technology and on adequate validation are still lacking. In addition to opening new fields of application, further research regarding possible risks is warranted. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: In the next 5 to 10 years, AI will improve and facilitate work in clinical practice. The integration of the applications into the existing RIS/PACS systems is expected to take place via app stores and/or existing teleradiology networks.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deep learning; Image analysis; Radiomics; Risks; Validation
Authors: Dan J Raz; Michael Lanuti; Henning C Gaissert; Cameron D Wright; Douglas J Mathisen; John C Wain Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Philippe Lambin; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Sara Carvalho; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Patrick Granton; Catharina M L Zegers; Robert Gillies; Ronald Boellard; André Dekker; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Brady J McKee; Shawn M Regis; Andrea B McKee; Sebastian Flacke; Christoph Wald Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Chintan Parmar; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Ralph Leijenaar; Mohammed Jermoumi; Sara Carvalho; Raymond H Mak; Sushmita Mitra; B Uma Shankar; Ron Kikinis; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Philippe Lambin; Hugo J W L Aerts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael Schwier; Joost van Griethuysen; Mark G Vangel; Steve Pieper; Sharon Peled; Clare Tempany; Hugo J W L Aerts; Ron Kikinis; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Safwan S Halabi; Luciano M Prevedello; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Artem B Mamonov; Alexander Bilbily; Mark Cicero; Ian Pan; Lucas Araújo Pereira; Rafael Teixeira Sousa; Nitamar Abdala; Felipe Campos Kitamura; Hans H Thodberg; Leon Chen; George Shih; Katherine Andriole; Marc D Kohli; Bradley J Erickson; Adam E Flanders Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Joseph Waller; Aisling O'Connor; Eleeza Rafaat; Ahmad Amireh; John Dempsey; Clarissa Martin; Muhammad Umair Journal: Pol J Radiol Date: 2022-02-25