Proposals for the use of artificial intelligence in emergency radiology

Advancing nursing practice with artificial intelligence: Enhancing preparedness for the future

AIM

This article aimed to explore the role of AI in advancing nursing practice, focusing on its impact on readiness for the future.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A position paper, the methodology comprises three key steps. First, a comprehensive literature search using specific keywords in reputable databases was conducted to gather current information on AI in nursing. Second, data extraction and synthesis from selected articles were performed. Finally, a thematic analysis identifies recurring themes to provide insights into AI's impact on future nursing practice.

RESULTS

The findings highlight the transformative role of AI in advancing nursing practice and preparing nurses for the future, including enhancing nursing practice with AI, preparing nurses for the future (AI education and training) and associated, ethical considerations and challenges. AI-enabled robotics and telehealth solutions expand the reach of nursing care, improving accessibility of healthcare services and remote monitoring capabilities of patients' health conditions.

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 in emergency radiology: A review of applications and possibilities

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in radiology have been rising exponentially in the last decade. Although AI has found usage in various areas of healthcare, its utilization in the emergency department (ED) as a tool for emergency radiologists shows great promise towards easing some of the challenges faced daily. There have been numerous reported studies examining the application of AI-based algorithms in identifying common ED conditions to ensure more rapid reporting and in turn quicker patient care. In addition to interpretive applications, AI assists with many of the non-interpretive tasks that are encountered every day by emergency radiologists. These include, but are not limited to, protocolling, image quality control and workflow prioritization. AI continues to face challenges such as physician uptake or costs, but is a long-term investment that shows great potential to relieve many difficulties faced by emergency radiologists and ultimately improve patient outcomes. This review sums up the current advances of AI in emergency radiology, including current diagnostic applications (interpretive) and applications that stretch beyond imaging (non-interpretive), analyzes current drawbacks of AI in emergency radiology and discusses future challenges.

Added value of an artificial intelligence solution for fracture detection in the radiologist's daily trauma emergencies workflow

PURPOSE

The main objective of this study was to compare radiologists' performance without and with artificial intelligence (AI) assistance for the detection of bone fractures from trauma emergencies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five hundred consecutive patients (232 women, 268 men) with a mean age of 37 ± 28 (SD) years (age range: 0.25-99 years) were retrospectively included. Three radiologists independently interpreted radiographs without then with AI assistance after a 1-month minimum washout period. The ground truth was determined by consensus reading between musculoskeletal radiologists and AI results. Patient-wise sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for fracture detection and reading time were compared between unassisted and AI-assisted readings of radiologists. Their performances were also assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

AI improved the patient-wise sensitivity of radiologists for fracture detection by 20% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14-26), P< 0.001) and their specificity by 0.6% (95% CI: -0.9-1.5; P = 0.47). It increased the PPV by 2.9% (95% CI: 0.4-5.4; P = 0.08) and the NPV by 10% (95% CI: 6.8-13.3; P < 0.001). Thanks to AI, the area under the ROC curve for fracture detection of readers increased respectively by 10.6%, 10.2% and 9.9%. Their mean reading time per patient decreased by respectively 10, 16 and 12 s (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-assisted radiologists work better and faster compared to unassisted radiologists. AI is of great aid to radiologists in daily trauma emergencies, and could reduce the cost of missed fractures.

External validation of a commercially available deep learning algorithm for fracture detection in children: Fracture detection with a deep learning algorithm

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to conduct an external validation of a fracture assessment deep learning algorithm (Rayvolve®) using digital radiographs from a real-life cohort of children presenting routinely to the emergency room.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted on 2634 radiography sets (5865 images) from 2549 children (1459 boys, 1090 girls; mean age, 8.5 ± 4.5 [SD] years; age range: 0-17 years) referred by the pediatric emergency room for trauma. For each set was recorded whether one or more fractures were found, the number of fractures, and their location found by the senior radiologists and the algorithm. Using the senior radiologist diagnosis as the standard of reference, the diagnostic performance of deep learning algorithm (Rayvolve®) was calculated via three different approaches: a detection approach (presence/absence of a fracture as a binary variable), an enumeration approach (exact number of fractures detected) and a localization approach (focusing on whether the detected fractures were correctly localized). Subgroup analyses were performed according to the presence of a cast or not, age category (0-4 vs. 5-18 years) and anatomical region.

RESULTS

Regarding detection approach, the deep learning algorithm yielded 95.7% sensitivity (95% CI: 94.0-96.9), 91.2% specificity (95% CI: 89.8-92.5) and 92.6% accuracy (95% CI: 91.5-93.6). Regarding enumeration and localization approaches, the deep learning algorithm yielded 94.1% sensitivity (95% CI: 92.1-95.6), 88.8% specificity (95% CI: 87.3-90.2) and 90.4% accuracy (95% CI: 89.2-91.5) for both approaches. Regarding age-related subgroup analyses, the deep learning algorithm yielded greater sensitivity and negative predictive value in the 5-18-years age group than in the 0-4-years age group for the detection approach (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002) and for the enumeration and localization approaches (P = 0.012 and P = 0.028). The high negative predictive value was robust, persisting in all of the subgroup analyses, except for patients with casts (P = 0.001 for the detection approach and P < 0.001 for the enumeration and localization approaches).

CONCLUSION

The Rayvolve® deep learning algorithm is very reliable for detecting fractures in children, especially in those older than 4 years and without cast.