FDA-approved deep learning software application versus radiologists with different levels of expertise: detection of intracranial hemorrhage in a retrospective single-center study

FDA Review of Radiologic AI Algorithms: Process and Challenges

A Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm misdiagnosed a finding as an intracranial hemorrhage in a patient, who was finally diagnosed with an ischemic stroke. This scenario highlights a notable failure mode of AI tools, emphasizing the importance of human-machine interaction. In this report, the authors summarize the review processes by the FDA for software as a medical device and the unique regulatory designs for radiologic AI/machine learning algorithms to ensure their safety in clinical practice. Then the challenges in maximizing the efficacy of these tools posed by their clinical implementation are discussed.

Diagnostic test accuracy of machine learning algorithms for the detection intracranial hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis study

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to objectively evaluate the evidence of machine learning (ML) in the patient diagnosis of Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH) on computed tomography (CT) scans.

METHODS

Until May 2023, systematic searches were conducted in ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, CINAHL, Science Direct, PROSPERO, and EMBASE for studies that evaluated the diagnostic precision of ML model-assisted ICH detection. Patients with and without ICH as the target condition who were receiving CT-Scan were eligible for the research, which used ML algorithms based on radiologists' reports as the gold reference standard. For meta-analysis, pooled sensitivities, specificities, and a summary receiver operating characteristics curve (SROC) were used.

RESULTS

At last, after screening the title, abstract, and full paper, twenty-six retrospective and three prospective, and two retrospective/prospective studies were included. The overall (Diagnostic Test Accuracy) DTA of retrospective studies with a pooled sensitivity was 0.917 (95% CI 0.88-0.943, I2 = 99%). The pooled specificity was 0.945 (95% CI 0.918-0.964, I2 = 100%). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 219.47 (95% CI 104.78-459.66, I2 = 100%). These results were significant for the specificity of the different network architecture models (p-value = 0.0289). However, the results for sensitivity (p-value = 0.6417) and DOR (p-value = 0.2187) were not significant. The ResNet algorithm has higher pooled specificity than other algorithms with 0.935 (95% CI 0.854-0.973, I2 = 93%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis on DTA of ML algorithms for detecting ICH by assessing non-contrast CT-Scans shows the ML has an acceptable performance in diagnosing ICH. Using ResNet in ICH detection remains promising prediction was improved via training in an Architecture Learning Network (ALN).

A survey of ASER members on artificial intelligence in emergency radiology: trends, perceptions, and expectations

PURPOSE

There is a growing body of diagnostic performance studies for emergency radiology-related artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) tools; however, little is known about user preferences, concerns, experiences, expectations, and the degree of penetration of AI tools in emergency radiology. Our aim is to conduct a survey of the current trends, perceptions, and expectations regarding AI among American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) members.

METHODS

An anonymous and voluntary online survey questionnaire was e-mailed to all ASER members, followed by two reminder e-mails. A descriptive analysis of the data was conducted, and results summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 113 members responded (response rate 12%). The majority were attending radiologists (90%) with greater than 10 years' experience (80%) and from an academic practice (65%). Most (55%) reported use of commercial AI CAD tools in their practice. Workflow prioritization based on pathology detection, injury or disease severity grading and classification, quantitative visualization, and auto-population of structured reports were identified as high-value tasks. Respondents overwhelmingly indicated a need for explainable and verifiable tools (87%) and the need for transparency in the development process (80%). Most respondents did not feel that AI would reduce the need for emergency radiologists in the next two decades (72%) or diminish interest in fellowship programs (58%). Negative perceptions pertained to potential for automation bias (23%), over-diagnosis (16%), poor generalizability (15%), negative impact on training (11%), and impediments to workflow (10%).

CONCLUSION

ASER member respondents are in general optimistic about the impact of AI in the practice of emergency radiology and its impact on the popularity of emergency radiology as a subspecialty. The majority expect to see transparent and explainable AI models with the radiologist as the decision-maker.

Artificial intelligence CAD tools in trauma imaging: a scoping review from the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) AI/ML Expert Panel

BACKGROUND

AI/ML CAD tools can potentially improve outcomes in the high-stakes, high-volume model of trauma radiology. No prior scoping review has been undertaken to comprehensively assess tools in this subspecialty.

PURPOSE

To map the evolution and current state of trauma radiology CAD tools along key dimensions of technology readiness.

METHODS

Following a search of databases, abstract screening, and full-text document review, CAD tool maturity was charted using elements of data curation, performance validation, outcomes research, explainability, user acceptance, and funding patterns. Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate key trends.

RESULTS

A total of 4052 records were screened, and 233 full-text articles were selected for content analysis. Twenty-one papers described FDA-approved commercial tools, and 212 reported algorithm prototypes. Works ranged from foundational research to multi-reader multi-case trials with heterogeneous external data. Scalable convolutional neural network-based implementations increased steeply after 2016 and were used in all commercial products; however, options for explainability were narrow. Of FDA-approved tools, 9/10 performed detection tasks. Dataset sizes ranged from < 100 to > 500,000 patients, and commercialization coincided with public dataset availability. Cross-sectional torso datasets were uniformly small. Data curation methods with ground truth labeling by independent readers were uncommon. No papers assessed user acceptance, and no method included human-computer interaction. The USA and China had the highest research output and frequency of research funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma imaging CAD tools are likely to improve patient care but are currently in an early stage of maturity, with few FDA-approved products for a limited number of uses. The scarcity of high-quality annotated data remains a major barrier.