Comparison between artificial intelligence solution and radiologist for the detection of pelvic, hip and extremity fractures on radiographs in adult using CT as standard of reference.

Artificial intelligence Computed tomography Emergency radiology Fracture Radiograph

Journal

Diagnostic and interventional imaging
ISSN: 2211-5684
Titre abrégé: Diagn Interv Imaging
Pays: France
ID NLM: 101568499

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 19 06 2024
revised: 03 09 2024
accepted: 04 09 2024
medline: 20 9 2024
pubmed: 20 9 2024
entrez: 19 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) solution for the detection of fractures of pelvic, proximal femur or extremity fractures in adults with radiologist interpretation of radiographs, using standard dose CT examination as the standard of reference. This retrospective study included 94 adult patients with suspected bone fractures who underwent a standard dose CT examination and radiographs of the pelvis and/or hip and extremities at our institution between January 2022 and August 2023. For all patients, an AI solution was used retrospectively on the radiographs to detect and localize bone fractures of the pelvis and/or hip and extremities. Results of the AI solution were compared to the reading of each radiograph by a radiologist using McNemar test. The results of standard dose CT examination as interpreted by a senior radiologist were used as the standard of reference. A total of 94 patients (63 women; mean age, 56.4 ± 22.5 [standard deviation] years) were included. Forty-seven patients had at least one fracture, and a total of 71 fractures were deemed present using the standard of reference (25 hand/wrist, 16 pelvis, 30 foot/ankle). Using the standard of reference, the analysis of radiographs by the AI solution resulted in 58 true positive, 13 false negative, 33 true negative and 15 false positive findings, yielding 82 % sensitivity (58/71; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 71-89 %), 69 % specificity (33/48; 95 % CI: 55-80 %), and 76 % accuracy (91/119; 95 % CI: 69-84 %). Using the standard of reference, the reading of the radiologist resulted in 65 true positive, 6 false negative, 42 true negative and 6 false positive findings, yielding 92 % sensitivity (65/71; 95 % CI: 82-96 %), 88 % specificity (42/48; 95 % CI: 75-94 %), and 90 % accuracy (107/119; 95 % CI: 85-95 %). The radiologist outperformed the AI solution in terms of sensitivity (P = 0.045), specificity (P = 0.016), and accuracy (P < 0.001). In this study, the radiologist outperformed the AI solution for the diagnosis of pelvic, hip and extremity fractures of the using radiographs. This raises the question of whether a strong standard of reference for evaluating AI solutions should be used in future studies comparing AI and human reading in fracture detection using radiographs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39299831
pii: S2211-5684(24)00197-9
doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2024.09.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Société française de radiologie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Maxime Pastor (M)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France. Electronic address: maxime.pastor@chu-nimes.fr.

Djamel Dabli (D)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Raphaël Lonjon (R)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Chris Serrand (C)

Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Public Health and Innovation in Methodology, Nîmes University Hospital, Univ. Montpellier, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Fehmi Snene (F)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Fayssal Trad (F)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Fabien de Oliveira (F)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Jean-Paul Beregi (JP)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Joël Greffier (J)

IMAGINE UR UM 103, Montpellier University, Department of Medical Imaging, Nîmes University Hospital, 30900 Nîmes, France.

Classifications MeSH