Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
2.
Biology (Basel) ; 10(2)2021 Jan 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1045466

ABSTRACT

To assess the performance of the second reading of chest compute tomography (CT) examinations by expert radiologists in patients with discordance between the reverse transcription real-time fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for COVID-19 viral pneumonia and the CT report. Three hundred and seventy-eight patients were included in this retrospective study (121 women and 257 men; 71 years median age, with a range of 29-93 years) and subjected to RT-PCR tests for suspicious COVID-19 infection. All patients were subjected to CT examination in order to evaluate the pulmonary disease involvement by COVID-19. CT images were reviewed first by two radiologists who identified COVID-19 typical CT patterns and then reanalyzed by another two radiologists using a CT structured report for COVID-19 diagnosis. Weighted к values were used to evaluate the inter-reader agreement. The median temporal window between RT-PCRs execution and CT scan was zero days with a range of (-9,11) days. The RT-PCR test was positive in 328/378 (86.8%). Discordance between RT-PCR and CT findings for viral pneumonia was revealed in 60 cases. The second reading changed the CT diagnosis in 16/60 (26.7%) cases contributing to an increase the concordance with the RT-PCR. Among these 60 cases, eight were false negative with positive RT-PCR, and 36 were false positive with negative RT-PCR. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of CT were respectively of 97.3%, 53.8%, 89.0%, and 88.4%. Double reading of CT scans and expert second readers could increase the diagnostic confidence of radiological interpretation in COVID-19 patients.

3.
Can Assoc Radiol J ; 72(4): 806-813, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-901683

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The RSNA expert consensus statement and CO-RADS reporting system assist radiologists in describing lung imaging findings in a standardized manner in patients under investigation for COVID-19 pneumonia and provide clarity in communication with other healthcare providers. We aim to compare diagnostic performance and inter-/intra-observer among chest radiologists in the interpretation of RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems and assess clinician preference. METHODS: Chest CT scans of 279 patients with suspected COVID-19 who underwent RT-PCR testing were retrospectively and independently examined by 3 chest radiologists who assigned interpretation according to the RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems. Inter-/intra-observer analysis was performed. Diagnostic accuracy of both reporting systems was calculated. 60 clinicians participated in a survey to assess end-user preference of the reporting systems. RESULTS: Both systems demonstrated almost perfect inter-observer agreement (Fleiss kappa 0.871, P < 0.0001 for RSNA; 0.876, P < 0.0001 for CO-RADS impressions). Intra-observer agreement between the 2 scoring systems using the equivalent categories was almost perfect (Fleiss kappa 0.90-0.92, P < 0.001). Positive predictive values were high, 0.798-0.818 for RSNA and 0.891-0.903 CO-RADS. Negative predictive value were similar, 0.573-0.585 for RSNA and 0.573-0.58 for CO-RADS. Specificity differed between the 2 systems, 68-73% for CO-RADS and 52-58% for RSNA with superior specificity of CO-RADS. Of 60 survey participants, the majority preferred the RSNA reporting system rather than CO-RADS for all options provided (66.7-76.7%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RSNA and CO-RADS reporting systems are consistent and reproducible with near perfect inter-/intra-observer agreement and excellent positive predictive value. End-users preferred the reporting language in the RSNA system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Radiologists , Radiology Information Systems/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Consensus , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , North America , Observer Variation , Radiology , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Societies, Medical
4.
Radiology ; 296(3): E156-E165, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-729427

ABSTRACT

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pneumonia of other diseases share similar CT characteristics, which contributes to the challenges in differentiating them with high accuracy. Purpose To establish and evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI) system for differentiating COVID-19 and other pneumonia at chest CT and assessing radiologist performance without and with AI assistance. Materials and Methods A total of 521 patients with positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results for COVID-19 and abnormal chest CT findings were retrospectively identified from 10 hospitals from January 2020 to April 2020. A total of 665 patients with non-COVID-19 pneumonia and definite evidence of pneumonia at chest CT were retrospectively selected from three hospitals between 2017 and 2019. To classify COVID-19 versus other pneumonia for each patient, abnormal CT slices were input into the EfficientNet B4 deep neural network architecture after lung segmentation, followed by a two-layer fully connected neural network to pool slices together. The final cohort of 1186 patients (132 583 CT slices) was divided into training, validation, and test sets in a 7:2:1 and equal ratio. Independent testing was performed by evaluating model performance in separate hospitals. Studies were blindly reviewed by six radiologists without and then with AI assistance. Results The final model achieved a test accuracy of 96% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 90%, 98%), a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI: 83%, 100%), and a specificity of 96% (95% CI: 88%, 99%) with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.95 and area under the precision-recall curve of 0.90. On independent testing, this model achieved an accuracy of 87% (95% CI: 82%, 90%), a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI: 81%, 94%), and a specificity of 86% (95% CI: 80%, 90%) with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 and area under the precision-recall curve of 0.87. Assisted by the probabilities of the model, the radiologists achieved a higher average test accuracy (90% vs 85%, Δ = 5, P < .001), sensitivity (88% vs 79%, Δ = 9, P < .001), and specificity (91% vs 88%, Δ = 3, P = .001). Conclusion Artificial intelligence assistance improved radiologists' performance in distinguishing coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia from non-coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia at chest CT. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.


Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Radiologists , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Child , Child, Preschool , China , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Philadelphia , Pneumonia/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , Radiologists/standards , Radiologists/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Rhode Island , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL