Correction to: Deep convolutional neural network-based detection of meniscus tears: comparison with radiologists and surgery as standard of reference.

The article "Deep convolutional neural network-based detection of meniscus tears: comparison with radiologists and surgery as standard of reference.

Deep Convolutional Neural Network-Based Diagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears: Performance Comparison of Homogenous Versus Heterogeneous Knee MRI Cohorts With Different Pulse Sequence Protocols and 1.5-T and 3-T Magnetic Field Strengths.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to clinically validate a Deep Convolutional Neural Network (DCNN) for the detection of surgically proven anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in a large patient cohort and to analyze the effect of magnetic resonance examinations from different institutions, varying protocols, and field strengths. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After ethics committee approval, this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed on 512 consecutive subjects, who underwent knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a total of 59 different institutions followed by arthroscopic knee surgery at our institution. The DCNN and 3 fellowship-trained full-time academic musculoskeletal radiologists evaluated the MRI examinations for full-thickness ACL tears independently. Surgical reports served as the reference standard. Statistics included diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating curve ("AUC ROC"), and kappa statistics. P values less than 0.05 were considered to represent statistical significance. RESULTS: Anterior cruciate ligament tears were present in 45.7% (234/512) and absent in 54.3% (278/512) of the subjects. The DCNN had a sensitivity of 96.1%, which was not significantly different from the readers (97.5%-97.9%; all P ≥ 0.118), but significantly lower specificity of 93.1% (readers, 99.6%-100%; all P < 0.001) and "AUC ROC" of 0.935 (readers, 0.989-0.991; all P < 0.001) for the entire cohort. Subgroup analysis showed a significantly lower sensitivity, specificity, and "AUC ROC" of the DCNN for outside MRI (92.5%, 87.1%, and 0.898, respectively) than in-house MRI (99.0%, 94.4%, and 0.967, respectively) examinations (P = 0.026, P = 0.043, and P < 0.05, respectively). There were no significant differences in DCNN performance for 1.5-T and 3-T MRI examinations (all P ≥ 0.753, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Deep Convolutional Neural Network performance of ACL tear diagnosis can approach performance levels similar to fellowship-trained full-time academic musculoskeletal radiologists at 1.5 T and 3 T; however, the performance may decrease with increasing MRI examination heterogeneity.

Deep convolutional neural network-based detection of meniscus tears: comparison with radiologists and surgery as standard of reference.

OBJECTIVE: To clinically validate a fully automated deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) for detection of surgically proven meniscus tears. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients were retrospectively included, who underwent knee MRI and knee arthroscopy in our institution. All MRI were evaluated for medial and lateral meniscus tears by two musculoskeletal radiologists independently and by DCNN. Included patients were not part of the training set of the DCNN. Surgical reports served as the standard of reference. Statistics included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, ROC curve analysis, and kappa statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent (57/100) of patients had a tear of the medial and 24% (24/100) of the lateral meniscus, including 12% (12/100) with a tear of both menisci. For medial meniscus tear detection, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were for reader 1: 93%, 91%, and 92%, for reader 2: 96%, 86%, and 92%, and for the DCNN: 84%, 88%, and 86%. For lateral meniscus tear detection, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were for reader 1: 71%, 95%, and 89%, for reader 2: 67%, 99%, and 91%, and for the DCNN: 58%, 92%, and 84%. Sensitivity for medial meniscus tears was significantly different between reader 2 and the DCNN (p = 0.039), and no significant differences existed for all other comparisons (all p ≥ 0.092). The AUC-ROC of the DCNN was 0.882, 0.781, and 0.961 for detection of medial, lateral, and overall meniscus tear. Inter-reader agreement was very good for the medial (kappa = 0.876) and good for the lateral meniscus (kappa = 0.741). CONCLUSION: DCNN-based meniscus tear detection can be performed in a fully automated manner with a similar specificity but a lower sensitivity in comparison with musculoskeletal radiologists.