Using an artificial intelligence software improves emergency medicine physician intracranial haemorrhage detection to radiologist levels

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Tools to increase the turnaround speed and accuracy of imaging reports could positively influence ED logistics. The Caire ICH is an artificial intelligence (AI) software developed for ED physicians to recognise intracranial haemorrhages (ICHs) on non-contrast enhanced cranial CT scans to manage the clinical care of these patients in a timelier fashion. METHODS: A dataset of 532 non-contrast cranial CT scans was reviewed by five board-certified emergency physicians (EPs) with an average of 14.8 years of practice experience. The scans were labelled in random order for the presence or absence of an ICH. If an ICH was detected, the reader further labelled all subtypes present (ie, epidural, subdural, subarachnoid, intraparenchymal and/or intraventricular haemorrhage). After a washout period, the five EPs reviewed again the scans individually with the assistance of Caire ICH. The mean accuracy of the EP readings with AI assistance was compared with the mean accuracy of three general radiologists reading the films individually. The final diagnosis (ie, ground truth) was adjudicated by a consensus of the radiologists after their individual readings. RESULTS: Mean EP reader accuracy significantly increased by 6.20% (95% CI for the difference 5.10%-7.29%; p=0.0092) when using Caire ICH to detect an ICH. Mean accuracy of the EP cohort in detecting an ICH using Caire ICH was found to be more accurate than the radiologist cohort prior to discussion; this difference, however, was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The Caire ICH software significantly improved the accuracy and sensitivity of detecting an ICH by the EP to a level comparable to general radiologists. Further prospective research with larger numbers will be needed to understand the impact of Caire ICH on ED logistics and patient outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.