The earliest adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) within clinical workflows has emerged within the emergency setting where it can manage priority for interpretation of imaging studies. In this triage role, AI does not commit to a diagnosis; rather it offers a binary decision as to whether the image contains a specific finding. The goal is to expedite the interpretation of the most critical cases, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes.
Stroke workflow, primed for optimization
One clinical domain particularly suited to workflow optimization, due to its time critical nature, is acute stroke. Advances in treatment have resulted in continually shifting guidelines, adding complexity to the time pressured decisions. With several key imaging features involved in stroke triage, it lends itself to the current focus on narrow AI solutions.
Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH) detection
ICH is a medical emergency and timely diagnosis is critical as nearly half of resulting mortalities occur within the first 24 hours. The speed of interpretation is dependent on the priority assigned to the scan request, which is a particular risk when symptoms can be vague. Automated ICH detection, as implemented by Canon Medical Systems’ Stroke CT Package, can address this problem by automatically detecting ICH and pushing the results to the neurointerventionalist. A case example is shown in Figure 1.
Performance of this algorithm, assessed in a validation cohort of 200 ICH positive and 102 non-ICH patients, yielded the following results (Table 1): a sensitivity of 0.93, specificity of 0.93, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 0.85 and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 0.98. Of note, where the algorithm performance is challenged is in cases of small volume hemorrhages. The author notes that ensemble methods using multimodal data may be used to address this limitation in the future.
|
All (n = 258) |
Small ICH (n = 93) |
Medium ICH (n = 117) |
Large ICH (n = 48) |
ICH volume (mL) |
17.2 ± 2.7 |
1.7 ± 0.3 |
13.2 ± 1.2 |
57.3 ± 6.1 |
Accuracy |
0.94 ± 0.01 |
0.94 ± 0.02 |
0.93 ± 0.02 |
0.95 ± 0.02 |
Sensitivity |
0.93 ± 0.03 |
0.89 ± 0.05 |
0.94 ± 0.04 |
0.99 ± 0.01 |
Specificity |
0.93 ± 0.01 |
0.94 ± 0.02 |
0.92 ± 0.02 |
0.92 ± 0.04 |
Positive predictive value |
0.85 ± 0.02 |
0.81 ± 0.05 |
0.86 ± 0.03 |
0.91 ± 0.04 |
Negative predictive value |
0.98 ± 0.01 |
0.98 ± 0.01 |
0.98 ± 0.01 |
0.99 ± 0.01 |
F1 score |
0.86 ± 0.03 |
0.81 ± 0.06 |
0.87 ± 0.04 |
0.94 ± 0.02 |
Matthews correlation coefficient |
0.87 ± 0.02 |
0.83 ± 0.04 |
0.87 ± 0.03 |
0.90 ± 0.04 |
Proper triage as ICH positive, % (n) |
95 (245) |
92.5 (86) |
94.9 (111) |
100.0 (48) |
Table 1. 95% Confidence Intervals for ICH volume, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, F1 score, and Matthews correlation metrics corresponding to the ICH detection algorithm for all, small (≤5 mL), medium (>5 and <30 mL), and large (≥30 mL) ICHs. The percentage of times the algorithm correctly detects an ICH is also indicated.