| Literature DB >> 34447599 |
Yadong Gang1, Xiongfeng Chen2, Hanlun Wang1, Jianying Li3, Ying Guo3, Bin Wen4, Jinxiang Hu1, Haibo Xu1, Xinghuan Wang5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put radiologists at a higher risk of infection during the computer tomography (CT) examination for the patients. To help settling these problems, we adopted a remote-enabled and automated contactless imaging workflow for CT examination by the combination of intelligent guided robot and automatic positioning technology to reduce the potential exposure of radiologists to 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection and to increase the examination efficiency, patient scanning accuracy and better image quality in chest CT imaging .Entities:
Keywords: Artificial intelligence; Computer tomography; Coronavirus disease 2019; Robotics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34447599 PMCID: PMC8156837 DOI: 10.1016/j.imed.2021.04.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Intell Med ISSN: 2667-1026
Figure 1Schematic diagram for the operating steps of conventional imaging workflow and automatic imaging workflow. (A) Flowchart for conventional imaging workflow. (B) Flowchart for automatic imaging workflow.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of intelligent guided robot and automatic positioning technology. (A) Composition of intelligent guided robot. (B) Flowchart of pose guidance and breath-holding training by the intelligent guided robot. (C) Automatic positioning technology used a fixed, ceiling-mounted, off-the-shelf, structured light projector and 2D/3D video camera that could determine the distances among various points in its field of view. (D) Eight supporting anatomical references / landmarks.
Figure 3Measurement and comparison of the difference of lung length, total examination time and complete coverage between conventional workflow and automatic workflow in CT imaging for COVID-19 patients. The difference of lung length was measured using the scout image (A) and axial thin-layer image (B) of the same patient, and the distance (d1 or d2) between apex pulmonis and basis pulmonis on the scout image or axial thin-layer image was recorded. (C) The lesions were shown along with ROI locations (green circles) used to acquire CT value (mean±SD) in different lung regions. (D) Measurement of the difference of lung length. (E) Quantification of the positioning time. (F) Comparison of the complete coverage on the axial thin-layer image acquired by CW and AW (data was presented as n (%), where n was the number of patients with complete chest CT axial images). G: Comparison of contact rate between CW and AW. *P<0.01; CW group, n = 146; AW group, n = 165.
Demographics and baseline characteristics of 311 enrolled COVID-19 patients.
| Groups | Number of patients | Age (years, M (Q1, Q3)) | Ratio of male to female | Body mass index (kg/m2, M (Q1, Q3)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CW group | 146 | 56 (19, 78) | 1.11:1 | 24.1 (17.5, 32.6) |
| AW group | 165 | 55 (21, 81) | 1.17:1 | 23.7 (18.1, 33.2) |
| – | 0.24 | – | 0.92 | |
CW: conventional manual workflow; AW: automatic contactless workflow.
Distribution of image noise and SNR of CW and AW groups in different lesion locations in chest CT.
| Lesion location (zone) | All lesions ( | Image noise (HU, mean±SD) | SNR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CW | AW | CW | AW | ||||
| Apical | 71/86 | 136.3 ± 70.7 | 133.3 ± 71.1 | 0.713 | 6.3 ± 4.1 | 6.7 ± 3.1 | 0.120 |
| Central | 59/72 | 134.1 ± 66.3 | 130.2 ± 67.5 | 0.430 | 6.4 ± 4.2 | 6.9 ± 3.9 | 0.188 |
| Peripheral | 232/261 | 146.6 ± 66.7 | 135.8 ± 74.4 | 0.069 | 5.4 ± 4.3 | 6.8 ± 4.4 | 0.011 |
| Centrilobular | 497/534 | 153.8 ± 72.7 | 140.4 ± 78.6 | 0.028 | 4.9 ± 3.7 | 6.6 ± 4.3 | 0.006 |
| Subpleural | 197/231 | 159.4 ± 82.7 | 140.6 ± 80.8 | 0.010 | 4.8 ± 4.0 | 6.4 ± 4.4 | <0.001 |
The data are mean±SD, where n is the number of the pulmonary lesions with available data. CW: conventional manual workflow; AW: automatic contactless workflow; SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.