Marco Aiello1, Dario Baldi1, Giuseppina Esposito2, Marika Valentino3,4, Marco Randon2, Marco Salvatore1, Carlo Cavaliere1. 1. IRCCS SDN, Naples, Italy. 2. Bio Check Up S.r.l, Naples, Italy. 3. Istituto di Scienze Applicate e Sistemi Intelligenti "Eduardo Caianiello" (ISASI-CNR), Pozzuoli, Italy. 4. Università Degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Dip. di Ingegneria Elettrica e Delle Tecnologie Dell'Informazione, Italy.
Abstract
A reliable diagnosis and accurate monitoring are pivotal steps for treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Chest computed tomography (CT) has been considered a crucial diagnostic imaging technique for the injury assessment of the viral pneumonia. Furthermore, the automatization of the segmentation methods for lung alterations helps to speed up the diagnosis and lighten radiologists' workload. Considering the assiduous pathology monitoring, ultra-low dose (ULD) chest CT protocols have been implemented to drastically reduce the radiation burden. Unfortunately, the available AI technologies have not been trained on ULD-CT data and validated and their applicability deserves careful evaluation. Therefore, this work aims to compare the results of available AI tools (BCUnet, CORADS AI, NVIDIA CLARA Train SDK and CT Pneumonia Analysis) on a dataset of 73 CT examinations acquired both with conventional dose (CD) and ULD protocols. COVID-19 volume percentage, resulting from each tool, was statistically compared. This study demonstrated high comparability of the results on CD-CT and ULD-CT data among the four AI tools, with high correlation between the results obtained on both protocols (R > .68, P < .001, for all AI tools).
A reliable diagnosis and accurate monitoring are pivotal steps for treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Chest computed tomography (CT) has been considered a crucial diagnostic imaging technique for the injury assessment of the viral pneumonia. Furthermore, the automatization of the segmentation methods for lung alterations helps to speed up the diagnosis and lighten radiologists' workload. Considering the assiduous pathology monitoring, ultra-low dose (ULD) chest CT protocols have been implemented to drastically reduce the radiation burden. Unfortunately, the available AI technologies have not been trained on ULD-CT data and validated and their applicability deserves careful evaluation. Therefore, this work aims to compare the results of available AI tools (BCUnet, CORADS AI, NVIDIA CLARA Train SDK and CT Pneumonia Analysis) on a dataset of 73 CT examinations acquired both with conventional dose (CD) and ULD protocols. COVID-19 volume percentage, resulting from each tool, was statistically compared. This study demonstrated high comparability of the results on CD-CT and ULD-CT data among the four AI tools, with high correlation between the results obtained on both protocols (R > .68, P < .001, for all AI tools).
COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus
(SARS-CoV-2) and it is an ongoing pandemic. It has spread since January 2020 and up
to early March 2021 has infected 130, 509,866 people worldwide, with 45,919,941
confirmed cases only in Europe.
The clinical presentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection can range from asymptomatic
to moderate or severe symptoms—such as fever, cough, weakness, loss of smell, and
taste—respiratory disease and, less frequently, gastro-enteritis or neurological
symptoms.The gold standard for COVID-19 detection is the Reverse-Transcription-Polymerase
Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test. Different studies reported that RT-PCR technique has a
high false negative rate and low sensitivity,
due to its variability in lab execution. In the cases of patients with
suspected coronavirus infection, with negative RT-PCR test or waiting for swab
responses, chest CT was used to speed up diagnosis times and to isolate the patient
from the rest of the community. CT diagnostic technique, as a non-invasive imaging
approach, is able to detect some characteristic features in the lung lesions
COVID-19 associated, for example, ground glass opacities, rounded opacities, and
enlarged intra-infiltrate vessels.[3,4] The chest X-ray has often
proved pathology (59% of cases) in asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic subjects after
14 days of quarantine, even in the absence of a nasopharyngeal swab.
In summer 2020, multidisciplinary panels of experts in patient management
published guidelines for support the use of chest CT for COVID-19 patients with
worsening respiratory status,
as well as the WHO.
Over the past decades, CT has become an important imaging technique, but it
is also a major contributor to individual and collective radiation dose. For patient
protection, CT dose is recommended to be as low as reasonably achievable to meet
clinical needs.
Technical progress including automated exposure control helps to optimize the
relationship between image noise and radiation dose. Correspondingly, automated
exposure control with tube current modulation has been developed for CT.[9,10] Moreover, adult scanning can
be adjusted according to body weight (the smaller the bodies, the lesser the dose;
instead, the larger the bodies, the higher the dose), resulting in excellent
diagnostic scans.
All these last assertions have been confirmed, advocating the proper
implementation, especially for chest scanning.[12-17] The optimal image quality
level for CT examinations stands for the level at which diagnostic images can
reliably be produced using the lowest dose level and it should be tailored according
to each individual patient and relevant cathegorized groups (e.g., pediatric, or
obese patients). Thus, to reduce radiological risks and dose, ULD-CT protocols have
been evaluated in recent decades.To date, according to the authors' knowledge, very few studies have been published
regarding dosimetry in ULD-CT protocols, and nothing that directly compares ULD-CT
to both CD-CT and radiography. Schaal et al. estimated an average effective dose of
.25 mSv based on exposure data from 55 patients, but lack of information about the
size of the patients adds uncertainty to this estimate.
In emergent situations such as COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for performing
CT scans may significantly increase due to the high rate of infected
individuals.The sequential and multiple acquisitions of CT exams can significantly increase the
cumulative radiation dose these patients may receive during their hospitalization
and recovery. Replacing CD-CT with ULD-CT has been proposed as a method to decrease
radiation exposure. In a retrospective study,
a low dose CT (LD-CT) combined with iterative reconstruction demonstrated
sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and
accuracy of about 90% in the diagnosis of COVID-19. Furthermore, ULD-CT protocols
proved an additive diagnostic benefit in patients with concomitant bacterial
pneumonia or an alternative diagnosis other than COVID-19.Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques—in particular deep learning (DL)
algorithms—have shown great potential in the medical imaging sector thanks to their
high ability to extract both morphological and functional features.[21-23] In particular, such
techniques have been applied to detect and differentiate bacterial and viral
pneumonia in pediatric chest radiographs.[24,25] Besides, a retrospective and
multicenter study regarding the application of DL technique to differentiate
coronavirus pneumonia from other lung diseases was recently published.
Harmon et al. show that DL algorithms, trained in a diverse multinational
cohort, can achieve up to 90.8% accuracy, with 84% sensitivity and 93% specificity.
Wang et al. uncovered some DL and radiomic features that contribute to
differentiation of COVID-19 from non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia.
As a consequence of DL techniques development to support the diagnosis of
COVID-19 on CT scans, several tools based on AI models trained on image datasets
acquired with CD-CT protocol have been made available to the clinical and research
community. The aim of this work is to evaluate the applicability of these tools also
in the domain of low-dose CT images (ULD).
Materials and Methods
Patients
73 patients (41 female, age range: 52.91 ±16.40 (mean age ± standard deviation))
were informed and prospectively enrolled for the research protocol approved by
the local ethical committee of IRCCS SDN (Comitato etico IRCCS Pascale, Naples,
project identification code: 7_20). The protocol was adopted to face the
pandemic situation. Inclusion criteria were the prescription of a chest CT for
post-COVID-19 screening, suspect COVID-19, and generally pulmonary pathology.
Anamnestic and clinical information were collected. Adult patients, with
pulmonary disease or post–COVID-19 infection symptoms, who underwent baseline,
unenhanced chest CT (according to clinical needs) on the third-generation dual
source CT. Exclusion criteria were patients with a BMI greater than 30 and
children and adolescents under 18 years.
CT Acquisition and Reconstruction
Patients lay in a head-first supine position during non-enhanced consecutive
acquisition CT protocols (CD-CT followed by ULD-CT). All patients underwent LD
chest CT by using a SOMATOM FORCE (Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany)
slice .6 mm detector scanner. No contrast agent was admitted. The CD-CT
acquisition parameters were as follows: tube voltage of reference 120 kVp, tube
current of reference 61 mAs, and pitch factor of 1.2. The automatic tube current
modulation (CareDose 4 D) system was used and the automatic tube voltage
selection (Care kV) was activated on the “non-enhanced” setting. For ULD-CT
acquisition, both the tubes worked at 100 kVp with .6 mm tin filter (100Sn kVp,
for spectral shaping), with wide collimation (2 × 192 × .6 mm), a rotation time
of .25 s, an ultra-long pitch (pitch = 3, Turbo Flash mode, Siemens
Healthineers), with modulated mA at 70 mAs reference. Effective radiation dose
was calculated by multiplying the dose-length product by .014 mSv/mGy x cm, as
the constant k-value for thoracic imaging. For both protocols, raw data were
reconstructed at 3 mm slice thickness by convolutional nucleus B157, Br54 (Br40,
moderately smooth). To reduce the image noise, Advanced Modeled Iterative
Reconstruction (ADMIRE) strength of 3 was used. All reconstructions were
performed with a matrix size of 512 × 512 pixels. Figure 1 shows CD-CT and ULD-CT images
of the same patient, where different noise levels can visually appreciate.
Figure 1.
CD-CT and ULD-CT comparison on the same COVID-19 patient. (a) A CD-CT
axial slice (100kVp, 47 mAs, Bl57), (b) A ULD-CT axial slice
(100kVp, 84 mAs, Bl57).
CD-CT and ULD-CT comparison on the same COVID-19 patient. (a) A CD-CT
axial slice (100kVp, 47 mAs, Bl57), (b) A ULD-CT axial slice
(100kVp, 84 mAs, Bl57).
Data Analysis
For each subject, COVID-19 pneumonia lesion segmentation has been executed on
imaging data acquired with both CD-CT and ULD-CT protocols. Four AI tools based
on deep neural networks have been used: BCUnet, CORADS AI, CT Pneumonia
Analysis, and NVIDIA CLARA Train SDK. All these tools have been validated only
for research purposes and not for clinical use. The architecture and the design
of each AI system are described in the following paragraphs.
BCUnet
BCUnet is a deep neural network for the segmentation of pulmonary lesions in
thoracic non-contrast CT images. The algorithm is based on a U-net architecture.
The model has been trained with a supervised DL technique. Each image
included in the dataset is associated with a manual annotation of the lesion.
The training dataset consists of 199 annotated CT images of COVID-19 patients,
provided by the COVID-19 Lung CT Lesion Segmentation Grand Challenge-2020.
In particular, the innovative contribution that characterizes BCUnet is
the introduction of an image masking technique and a data augmentation
technique, which provides additional images for training the network by adding
Gaussian noise and images deformed with an atlas-based method. The model was
implemented in Python 3.6, using Tensorflow 2.3 and Keras as frameworks. The
MobileNetV2 network weights have been made available by Tensorflow. The code for
the CLAHE algorithm is contained in the scikit-image library.
CORADS AI
COVID-19 Reporting and Data AI System (CORADS AI) is a standardized chest CT
scoring system that, after segmentation, automatically assigns scores from 1 to
5 that increase with the level of suspicion of COVID-19.
This algorithm was developed by the Diagnostic Image Analysis Group,
Amsterdam University Medical Center, Fraunhofer MEVIS, and Thirona. For any
detail, see https://grand-challenge.org/algorithms/corads-ai/. In the
following analysis, the used annotation is CORADS.
NVIDIA CLARA Train SDK
Clara Training Framework is a package-level application of NVIDIA Clara Train
Software Development Kit (SDK), a python-based SDK that allows developers to
seek faster implementation of medical-specific DL solutions by leveraging
optimized, ready-to-use and pre-trained built in-house NVIDIA models. These
pre-trained models are packaged as medical model repositories (MMARs) and
contain the scripts needed for model development activities. The collection
includes pre-trained models for CT lung segmentation, COVID-19 classification in
chest studies, and a CT annotated lung model. In this work two CLARA models have
been used:(i) lung segmentation (https://ngc.nvidia.com/catalog/models/nvidia:med:clara_train_covid19_ct_lung_seg)
and (ii) COVID-19 CT lesion segmentation (https://ngc.nvidia.com/catalog/models/nvidia:med:clara_pt_covid19_ct_lesion_segmentation).
In the following analysis, the used annotation is CLARA.
CT Pneumonia Analysis
CT Pneumonia Analysis, syngo.via Frontier prototype, is an interactive platform
for pneumonia analysis developed by Siemens Healthineers,
https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/medical-imaging/digital-transformation-of-radiology/ai-covid-19-algorithm)
to automatically identify and quantify hyperdense lung regions on lung CT scans,
facilitating their analysis and evaluation. CT Pneumonia Analysis performs the
automated analysis of pulmonary opacities on axial CT data (section thicknesses
up to 5 mm), with the possibility of introducing, through the manual
segmentation tool, any additions or changes to the automatically generated
masks. In the following analysis the used annotation is Pneumonia.
Statistical Analysis
For each patient, COVID-19 volume percentage (CV%) has been calculated considering
the COVID-19 lung lesion volume on the total lung volume, as obtained by each AI
segmentation tool. The CV% has been estimated on both CD-CT and ULD-CT considering
two different convolutional kernels for image reconstruction, that is, Bl57 and
Br40, maintaining a 3 mm CT slice thickness and a denoise level of three. Under
these conditions, first, a Shapiro test has been implemented to assert the normality
data distribution.
Moreover, according to Shapiro results, a Kruskal–Wallis (KW) test
has been performed to assess the difference between the AI-based segmentation
tools on CD-CT and ULD-CT, with a subsequent Dunn’s post hoc test
to determine which tools differ. To graphically understand data trend and
distribution relating to single protocols and single AI segmentation algorithms,
boxplots have been realized, denoting the median, the 25th to 75th percentiles
(boxes) and the minimum to the maximum outliers. A quantitative analysis has been
evaluated to prove the correlation between CD and ULD-CT protocols in CV% parameter,
applying the Spearman’s correlation coefficient test,
figuring the relative heatmap. To strengthen the comparison, the pairwise
Bland-Altman (BA) test
has been carried out to describe the agreement between the two quantitative
protocol measurements, that is, CD-CT CV% and ULD-CT CV% values, with respect to AI
tools. To quantify the aforementioned agreement, some constraints have been needed:
the mean and the standard deviation (STD) of the differences between the two
measurements (mean −1.96 std/mean +1.96 std). A BA graphical approach has been used.
For the sake of in-depth analysis, all the statistics have been repeated on data
generated by BCUnet and CORADS tools implementing the lung lesion segmentation lobe
by lobe. The lung lobe segmentation has been included because of the importance of
knowing the location and distribution of COVID-19 lung disease, which can help in
determining the most suitable treatment.
Under the same previous conditions, CV% has been calculated for each lung
lobe, naming differently as LLL%, the left lower lobe COVID-19 volume percentage;
LUL%, the left upper lobe COVID-19 volume percentage; RLL%, the right lower lobe
COVID-19 volume percentage; RML%, the right medium lobe COVID-19 volume percentage;
and RUL%, the right upper lobe COVID-19 volume percentage. These percentages were
obtained for both protocols (CD-CT and ULD-CT). All the statistical analyses have
been performed using Python libraries, in particular PyCompare module, SciPy
library, Pingouin, and scikit_posthocs packages. The results have been considered
statistically significant for P-value less than .05.
Results
The Shapiro test has been applied to check the normal tendency of data distribution,
including all kernel reconstructions. It has been evaluated per each AI-based
segmentation tool with respect to both protocols. Table 1 shows Shapiro test results in
terms of W statistic and P-value.
Table 1.
Shapiro test results, in terms of W statistic and
P-value, for all AI-based segmentation tools
considering both CD-CT and ULD-CT protocols.
BCUnet CD
BCUnet ULD
CORADS CD
CORADS ULD
CLARA CD
CLARA ULD
Pneumonia CD
Pneumonia ULD
W Statistic
.971
.961
.591
.681
.892
.814
.663
.591
P-value
.9028
.8203
.0001*
.0014*
.2437
.0403*
.0009*
.0001*
*indicates significance with P < .05
Shapiro test results, in terms of W statistic and
P-value, for all AI-based segmentation tools
considering both CD-CT and ULD-CT protocols.*indicates significance with P < .05As it can be noticed in Table
1, CORADS and Pneumonia data (both CD-CT and ULD-CT) and CLARA ULD-CT
data do not follow a Gaussian distribution (P-value < .05).
Since most AI segmentation algorithms have generated non-Gaussian data, all data
have been considered non-parametric.The result of the KW test rejects the null hypothesis with a H statistic of 182.19
and P-value less than .001, meaning that the used algorithms
differ. Regarding the Dunn’s post hoc test, Table 2 and Table 3 show the obtained results relative
to CD-CT and ULD-CT data, respectively.
Table 2.
Dunn’s test results for all AI-based segmentation tools on CD-CT
data.
CD-CT P-value
BCUnet
CORADS
CLARA
Pneumonia
BCUnet
1.000000e+00
4.272311e−28*
6.949754e−25*
3.915073e−29*
CORADS
4.272311e−28
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
CLARA
6.949754e−25
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
Pneumonia
3.915073e−29
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
*indicates significance with P < .01. Highlighted row represents
which algorithm differs.
Table 3.
Dunn’s test results for all AI-based segmentation tools on ULD-CT
data.
ULD-CT P-value
BCUnet
CORADS
CLARA
Pneumonia
BCUnet
1.000000e+00
4.428678e−13*
2.784633e−17*
2.176567e−37*
CORADS
4.428678e−13
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
3.274795e−07
CLARA
2.784633e−17
1.000000e+00
1.000000e+00
1.255710e-04
Pneumonia
2.176567e−37*
3.274795e−07*
1.255710e−04*
1.000000e+00
* indicates significance with P < .01. Highlighted rows represent
which algorithm differs.
Dunn’s test results for all AI-based segmentation tools on CD-CT
data.*indicates significance with P < .01. Highlighted row represents
which algorithm differs.Dunn’s test results for all AI-based segmentation tools on ULD-CT
data.* indicates significance with P < .01. Highlighted rows represent
which algorithm differs.According to P-values in Table 2, BCUnet differs from the other
tools (P-value < .01 rejects the null hypothesis of no
differences) meaning that CORADS, CLARA and Pneumonia tools generate similar CD-CT
CV% values. Instead, in Table
3 it is highlighted that BCUnet and Pneumonia tools differ on ULD-CT CV%
values estimation. Therefore, although the segmentation results have been generated
by different AI algorithms, it has been demonstrated that these algorithms give
comparable results, in terms of CV% values, regardless of the CT dose protocols. In
fact, for a qualitative demonstration, Figure 2 shows that the resulting CV% values
distributions of each AI tool are comparable for both dose protocols. The
non-Gaussian nature of the data can be also observed, according to Shapiro results.
Moreover, the overall trend of the boxplots matches the results of Dunn’s test.
Figure 2.
CD-CT and ULD-CT boxplots for all AI-based segmentation tools. Green
boxplots represent CD-CT CV% values, while pink boxplots represent
ULD-CT CV% values. The red line is the median value of plotted data; the
bars are the relative standard deviations and the dots are the
outliers.
CD-CT and ULD-CT boxplots for all AI-based segmentation tools. Green
boxplots represent CD-CT CV% values, while pink boxplots represent
ULD-CT CV% values. The red line is the median value of plotted data; the
bars are the relative standard deviations and the dots are the
outliers.Regarding the correlation analysis, Spearman correlation coefficients (R) have been
carried out showing that all correlation coefficients are statistically significant.
Figure 3 shows the
heatmap of R values. The red-squared correlation coefficients refer to CD and ULD-CT
CV% values obtained by the same AI-based segmentation tool, highlighting a strong
correlation (R > .6), meaning that ULD-CT protocol can be used for a CV%
estimation comparable to CD-CT protocol, using all AI algorithms. To strengthen this
result, the pairwise (CD-CT and ULD-CT protocols) BA test has been applied on each
AI-based segmentation tool. Figure
4 shows BA results considering CD and ULD-CT CV% values, averaged over
all patients. The bias has been computed as the value determined by one CD-CT CV%
minus the value determined by the corresponding ULD-CT. The green dots represent the
paired difference between CD and ULD CV% values; the bold line is the mean of all
differences. As the plots in Figure 4 illustrate, the mean is around zero per each tool, confirming
that the bias (distance between zero line and mean line) is negligible. Moreover,
except for some outliers, most green dots do not exceed the maximum allowed
difference limits, according to which the differences within mean ± 1.96 SD are
considered not relevant, demonstrating that the segmentation algorithms can work
similarly if they use CD-CT data and ULD-CT ones.
Figure 3.
Spearman correlation coefficient heatmap. R values range in [−1, 1]
interval.
Figure 4.
BA plots generated using paired values, that is, CD-CT and ULD-CT CV%
values, obtained from BCUnet, CORADS, CLARA, and Pneumonia tools. The
black line is the mean of differences between two measurements; the
dashed lines represent the test constraints (mean −1.96 std/mean +1.96
std) and the dots are the paired differences of the two measurements
(both dose protocols) for each patient.
Spearman correlation coefficient heatmap. R values range in [−1, 1]
interval.BA plots generated using paired values, that is, CD-CT and ULD-CT CV%
values, obtained from BCUnet, CORADS, CLARA, and Pneumonia tools. The
black line is the mean of differences between two measurements; the
dashed lines represent the test constraints (mean −1.96 std/mean +1.96
std) and the dots are the paired differences of the two measurements
(both dose protocols) for each patient.After reaching the previous results from CV% data calculated with AI segmentation
algorithms on total lungs, these assays have been verified on data obtained with
lung lobe lesion segmentation algorithms, using BCUnet and CORADS tools. Data under
statistics were the lung lobe COVID-19 lesion volume percentage for each patient and
each protocol, as explained in “Statistical analysis” section. Hence, data have been
proved non-parametric according to the Shapiro test (P < .01), and also using
lobe segmentation, BCUnet and CORADS tools result different according to the KW
test. Since we implemented only two AI tools for lung lobe segmentation, Dunn’s test
has not been applied. Considering correlation analysis, LLL%, LUL%, RLL%, RLM%, and
RUL% data show significant R values, between CD-CT and ULD-CT protocol, greater than
.66 for BCUnet tool (red squares in Figure 5) and greater than .51 for CORADS
tool (green squares in Figure
5).
Figure 5.
Spearman correlation coefficient heatmap for lung lobe lesions volume
percentage on CD and ULD-CT protocols. R values range in [−1, 1]
interval.
Spearman correlation coefficient heatmap for lung lobe lesions volume
percentage on CD and ULD-CT protocols. R values range in [−1, 1]
interval.In Figure 6, BA plots on
LLL%, LUL%, RLL%, RLM%, and RUL% of BCUnet tool are presented. The paired
measurements are contained in the allowed limits. OnlyRLM% BA plot shows more
scattered data, always staying in the confidence interval limits. In Figure 7, BA plots on LLL%,
LUL%, RLL%, RLM%, and RUL% of CORADS tool are shown. As in the previous plots, a low
bias is obtained and paired measurements are contained in the allowed limits, as
explained in the captions of Figure 6 and Figure
7. These last results confirm that AI-based segmentation tools took out
comparable outcomes when obtained on both CD-CT and ULD-CT data.
Figure 6.
BA plots generated using paired values, examined on LLL%, LUL%, RLL%,
RLM%, and RUL% of BCUnet tool. The black line is the mean of differences
between two measurements; the dashed lines represent the test limits
(mean −1.96 std/mean +1.96 std) and the dots are the paired differences
of the two measurements (both dose protocols) for each patient.
Figure 7.
BA plots generated using paired values, examined on LLL%, LUL%, RLL%,
RLM%, and RUL% of CORADS tool. The black line is the mean of differences
between two measurements; the dashed lines represent the test limits
(mean −1.96 std/mean +1.96 std) and the dots are the paired differences
of the two measurements (both dose protocols) for each patient.
BA plots generated using paired values, examined on LLL%, LUL%, RLL%,
RLM%, and RUL% of BCUnet tool. The black line is the mean of differences
between two measurements; the dashed lines represent the test limits
(mean −1.96 std/mean +1.96 std) and the dots are the paired differences
of the two measurements (both dose protocols) for each patient.BA plots generated using paired values, examined on LLL%, LUL%, RLL%,
RLM%, and RUL% of CORADS tool. The black line is the mean of differences
between two measurements; the dashed lines represent the test limits
(mean −1.96 std/mean +1.96 std) and the dots are the paired differences
of the two measurements (both dose protocols) for each patient.
Discussion
AI-based tools supporting radiological evaluation can offer significant benefit in
clinical practice. COVID-19 pandemic has led to the development and refinement of AI
algorithms for disease diagnosis and monitoring, in particular for the automation of
lesion segmentations on CT images. However, the reliability of AI-based techniques
requires careful evaluation of the reproducibility with respect to the use of
different acquisition techniques. Furthermore, lack of knowledge of COVID-19 disease
felt the need to increase monitoring for fast diagnosis and reliable prevention,
leading patients to greater radiological exposure. Thus, low dose protocols for CT
scans have been implemented.In this work, the agreement of AI-based COVID-19 lung lesions segmentation methods
between chest CT images acquired following both CD-CT and ULD-CT protocols has been
evaluated for the first time. Four different DL-based segmentation tools, trained on
CD-CT protocol images, have been considered. The CV% parameter has been calculated
on both dose protocols data, allowing such statistical inferences. First of all, the
data showed on average a behavior far from a Gaussian distribution, thus
implementing non-parametric tests (e.g., KW test). The AI tools have been pairwise
compared to estimate their differences when applied on both dose protocols. As shown
by the Spearman correlation coefficients (R > .6 and P-value
< .05), a good agreement between CD and ULD-CT CV% values has resulted, confirmed
by the BA test (Figure 4).
However, although the lack of diagnostic support tools trained on specific ULD-CT
data, it does not represent a critical limitation, since suitability of AI tools
designed on conventional datasets have been proved. Besides, the reliability of ULD
protocols has been already demonstrated on comparable diagnostic performance
evaluation for viral pneumonia detection on CT images,[39-41] but these results can
consolidate the role of ULD-CT in clinical routine with the undeniable advantage of
high dose reduction rate. This study should be considered as a preliminary
investigation, since it requires further development for a comprehensive evaluation.
Indeed, the application of retrospective noise reduction algorithms
should be evaluated to improve the results of conventional algorithms on
ULD-CT data. In addition, the inclusion of ULD-CT data for AI model training should
be assessed. Noteworthy, the patients’ body mass index (BMI) may have a considerable
effect on the signal to noise ratio of the resulting ULD-CT images,[43,44] and
consequently on the analyzed algorithms’ results. The influence of BMI on the
results agreement relative to both ULD-CT and CD-CT protocols deserves to be further
investigated.Among the examinations considered, a limitation of the present study is an unrevealed
quantifiable lesion load. In order to mitigate this limitation, two different
segmentation tasks have been considered, that is, lung and lobes segmentation.
Although it is a very specific work, our approach can also be applied to other
anatomical sectors, analyzing different classification tasks.[45-50] In conclusion, this work
investigates the applicability of automatic segmentation techniques, trained on
CD-CT protocol, to the images acquired in ULD mode. This preliminary study confirms
the suitability of available AI-based segmentation tools on ULD-CT data, for
supporting diagnosis and quantification of COVID-19 lung lesions.
Authors: S Diederich; H Lenzen; R Windmann; Z Puskas; T M Yelbuz; S Henneken; T Klaiber; M Eameri; N Roos; P E Peters Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel S Kermany; Michael Goldbaum; Wenjia Cai; Carolina C S Valentim; Huiying Liang; Sally L Baxter; Alex McKeown; Ge Yang; Xiaokang Wu; Fangbing Yan; Justin Dong; Made K Prasadha; Jacqueline Pei; Magdalene Y L Ting; Jie Zhu; Christina Li; Sierra Hewett; Jason Dong; Ian Ziyar; Alexander Shi; Runze Zhang; Lianghong Zheng; Rui Hou; William Shi; Xin Fu; Yaou Duan; Viet A N Huu; Cindy Wen; Edward D Zhang; Charlotte L Zhang; Oulan Li; Xiaobo Wang; Michael A Singer; Xiaodong Sun; Jie Xu; Ali Tafreshi; M Anthony Lewis; Huimin Xia; Kang Zhang Journal: Cell Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Shikha Chaganti; Philippe Grenier; Abishek Balachandran; Guillaume Chabin; Stuart Cohen; Thomas Flohr; Bogdan Georgescu; Sasa Grbic; Siqi Liu; François Mellot; Nicolas Murray; Savvas Nicolaou; William Parker; Thomas Re; Pina Sanelli; Alexander W Sauter; Zhoubing Xu; Youngjin Yoo; Valentin Ziebandt; Dorin Comaniciu Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-07-29
Authors: Nikolas Lessmann; Clara I Sánchez; Ludo Beenen; Luuk H Boulogne; Monique Brink; Erdi Calli; Jean-Paul Charbonnier; Ton Dofferhoff; Wouter M van Everdingen; Paul K Gerke; Bram Geurts; Hester A Gietema; Miriam Groeneveld; Louis van Harten; Nils Hendrix; Ward Hendrix; Henkjan J Huisman; Ivana Išgum; Colin Jacobs; Ruben Kluge; Michel Kok; Jasenko Krdzalic; Bianca Lassen-Schmidt; Kicky van Leeuwen; James Meakin; Mike Overkamp; Tjalco van Rees Vellinga; Eva M van Rikxoort; Riccardo Samperna; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Steven Schalekamp; Ernst Th Scholten; Cheryl Sital; Lauran Stöger; Jonas Teuwen; Kiran Vaidhya Venkadesh; Coen de Vente; Marieke Vermaat; Weiyi Xie; Bram de Wilde; Mathias Prokop; Bram van Ginneken Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 11.105