DIY AI, deep learning network development for automated image classification in a point-of-care ultrasound quality assurance program.

artificial intelligence deep learning emergency medicine emergency ultrasound point‐of‐care ultrasound

Journal

Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open
ISSN: 2688-1152
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101764779

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Historique:
received: 02 11 2019
revised: 01 12 2019
accepted: 13 01 2020
entrez: 1 10 2020
pubmed: 2 10 2020
medline: 2 10 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly a part of daily life and offers great possibilities to enrich health care. Imaging applications of AI have been mostly developed by large, well-funded companies and currently are inaccessible to the comparatively small market of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) programs. Given this absence of commercial solutions, we sought to create and test a do-it-yourself (DIY) deep learning algorithm to classify ultrasound images to enhance the quality assurance work-flow for POCUS programs. We created a convolutional neural network using publicly available software tools and pre-existing convolutional neural network architecture. The convolutional neural network was subsequently trained using ultrasound images from seven ultrasound exam types: pelvis, heart, lung, abdomen, musculoskeletal, ocular, and central vascular access from 189 publicly available POCUS videos. Approximately 121,000 individual images were extracted from the videos, 80% were used for model training and 10% each for cross validation and testing. We then tested the algorithm for accuracy against a set of 160 randomly extracted ultrasound frames from ultrasound videos not previously used for training and that were performed on different ultrasound equipment. Three POCUS experts blindly categorized the 160 random images, and results were compared to the convolutional neural network algorithm. Descriptive statistics and Krippendorff alpha reliability estimates were calculated. The cross validation of the convolutional neural network approached 99% for accuracy. The algorithm accurately classified 98% of the test ultrasound images. In the new POCUS program simulation phase, the algorithm accurately classified 70% of 160 new images for moderate correlation with the ground truth, α = 0.64. The three blinded POCUS experts correctly classified 93%, 94%, and 98% of the images, respectively. There was excellent agreement among the experts with α = 0.87. Agreement between experts and algorithm was good with α = 0.74. The most common error was misclassifying musculoskeletal images for both the algorithm (40%) and POCUS experts (40.6%). The algorithm took 7 minutes 45 seconds to review and classify the new 160 images. The 3 expert reviewers took 27, 32, and 45 minutes to classify the images, respectively. Our algorithm accurately classified 98% of new images, by body scan area, related to its training pool, simulating POCUS program workflow. Performance was diminished with exam images from an unrelated image pool and ultrasound equipment, suggesting additional images and convolutional neural network training are necessary for fine tuning when using across different POCUS programs. The algorithm showed theoretical potential to improve workflow for POCUS program directors, if fully implemented. The implications of our DIY AI for POCUS are scalable and further work to maximize the collaboration between AI and POCUS programs is warranted.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly a part of daily life and offers great possibilities to enrich health care. Imaging applications of AI have been mostly developed by large, well-funded companies and currently are inaccessible to the comparatively small market of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) programs. Given this absence of commercial solutions, we sought to create and test a do-it-yourself (DIY) deep learning algorithm to classify ultrasound images to enhance the quality assurance work-flow for POCUS programs.
METHODS METHODS
We created a convolutional neural network using publicly available software tools and pre-existing convolutional neural network architecture. The convolutional neural network was subsequently trained using ultrasound images from seven ultrasound exam types: pelvis, heart, lung, abdomen, musculoskeletal, ocular, and central vascular access from 189 publicly available POCUS videos. Approximately 121,000 individual images were extracted from the videos, 80% were used for model training and 10% each for cross validation and testing. We then tested the algorithm for accuracy against a set of 160 randomly extracted ultrasound frames from ultrasound videos not previously used for training and that were performed on different ultrasound equipment. Three POCUS experts blindly categorized the 160 random images, and results were compared to the convolutional neural network algorithm. Descriptive statistics and Krippendorff alpha reliability estimates were calculated.
RESULTS RESULTS
The cross validation of the convolutional neural network approached 99% for accuracy. The algorithm accurately classified 98% of the test ultrasound images. In the new POCUS program simulation phase, the algorithm accurately classified 70% of 160 new images for moderate correlation with the ground truth, α = 0.64. The three blinded POCUS experts correctly classified 93%, 94%, and 98% of the images, respectively. There was excellent agreement among the experts with α = 0.87. Agreement between experts and algorithm was good with α = 0.74. The most common error was misclassifying musculoskeletal images for both the algorithm (40%) and POCUS experts (40.6%). The algorithm took 7 minutes 45 seconds to review and classify the new 160 images. The 3 expert reviewers took 27, 32, and 45 minutes to classify the images, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our algorithm accurately classified 98% of new images, by body scan area, related to its training pool, simulating POCUS program workflow. Performance was diminished with exam images from an unrelated image pool and ultrasound equipment, suggesting additional images and convolutional neural network training are necessary for fine tuning when using across different POCUS programs. The algorithm showed theoretical potential to improve workflow for POCUS program directors, if fully implemented. The implications of our DIY AI for POCUS are scalable and further work to maximize the collaboration between AI and POCUS programs is warranted.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33000024
doi: 10.1002/emp2.12018
pii: EMP212018
pmc: PMC7493582
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

124-131

Informations de copyright

© 2020 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

MB consults with EchoNous Inc and 410Medical. Neither company had influence or contribution to this study and manuscript, nor knowledge of its performance.

Références

West J Emerg Med. 2018 Jul;19(4):649-653
pubmed: 30013699
Ann Emerg Med. 2006 Oct;48(4):487-510
pubmed: 16997700
Radiology. 2017 Aug;284(2):574-582
pubmed: 28436741
Lancet. 2018 Dec 1;392(10162):2388-2396
pubmed: 30318264
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 4;13(10):e0204155
pubmed: 30286097
J Neurotrauma. 2008 Oct;25(10):1163-72
pubmed: 18986221
PLoS Med. 2018 Nov 6;15(11):e1002683
pubmed: 30399157
Crit Ultrasound J. 2015 Dec;7(1):18
pubmed: 26589313
J Crit Care. 2015 Apr;30(2):441.e1-6
pubmed: 25542061
Am Fam Physician. 2018 Aug 15;98(4):200-202
pubmed: 30215979
Korean J Radiol. 2019 Mar;20(3):405-410
pubmed: 30799571
J Healthc Eng. 2018 Aug 1;2018:4168538
pubmed: 30154989
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Apr 12;7(8):
pubmed: 29650709
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2019 Jul 5;:
pubmed: 31283722
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Sep;94(9):1910-1912
pubmed: 31486389
Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Dec;16 Suppl 2:S32-6
pubmed: 20053207
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Dec;32(6):925-930
pubmed: 30972585
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2017 Jan;43(1):49-58
pubmed: 27472989
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Jul;68(1):e11-48
pubmed: 27343675
J Hosp Med. 2019 Jan 2;14:E1-E6
pubmed: 30604779
J Ultrasound Med. 2017 May;36(5):913-921
pubmed: 28150328
J Thorac Imaging. 2019 Mar;34(2):86-91
pubmed: 30802232
J Ultrasound Med. 2019 Apr;38(4):833-849
pubmed: 30895665

Auteurs

Michael Blaivas (M)

Department of Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine University of South Carolina School of Medicine St. Francis Hospital Columbus Georgia.

Robert Arntfield (R)

Department of Critical Care Medicine Western University Ontario.

Matthew White (M)

Department of Critical Care Medicine Western University Ontario.

Classifications MeSH