Artificial Intelligence-assisted reader evaluation in acute CT head interpretation (AI-REACT): a multireader multicase study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Non-contrast CT head scans (NCCTH) are the most frequently requested cross-sectional imaging in the Emergency Department. While AI tools have been developed to detect NCCTH abnormalities, most validation studies compare AI to radiologists, with limited evidence on the impact of AI assistance for other healthcare professionals. Objective To evaluate whether an AI-powered tool improves the accuracy, speed, and confidence of general radiologists, emergency clinicians, and radiographers in detecting critical abnormalities on NCCTH, and to assess the tool’s stand-alone performance and factors influencing diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Methods A retrospective dataset of 150 NCCTH (52 normal, 98 with critical abnormalities: intracranial haemorrhage, hypodensity, midline shift, mass effect, or skull fracture) was reviewed by 30 readers (10 radiologists, 15 emergency clinicians, 5 radiographers) from four NHS trusts. Each reader interpreted scans first unaided, then with the qER EU 2.0 AI tool, separated by a 2-week washout. Ground truth was established by consensus of two neuroradiologists. We assessed the stand-alone performance of qER and its effect on reader diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and interpretation speed. Results The qER algorithm demonstrated strong diagnostic performance across most pathology subgroups (AUC 0.821–0.976). With AI assistance, pooled reader sensitivity for critically abnormal scans increased from 82.8% to 89.7% (+6.9%, 95% CI +1.4% to +10.6%, p<0.001), and for intracranial haemorrhage from 84.6% to 91.6% (+7.0%, 95% CI +3.2% to +10.8%, p<0.001), but specificity decreased from 84.5% to 78.9% (–5.5%, 95% CI –11.0% to –0.09%, p=0.046). Reader confidence AUC did not change significantly. ED clinicians with AI achieved sensitivity comparable to unaided radiologists, with no significant change in specificity. Conclusion AI-assisted interpretation increased reader sensitivity for critical abnormalities but reduced specificity. Notably, AI assistance enabled ED clinicians to reach diagnostic sensitivity similar to unaided radiologists, supporting the potential for AI to extend the diagnostic capabilities of non-radiologists. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings in real-world settings. Funding This study was funded by Qure.ai via an NHSX Award Ethics The study has been approved by the UK Healthcare Research Authority (IRAS 310995, approved 13/12/2022). The use of anonymised retrospective NCCTH has been authorised by Oxford University Hospitals. Trial registration number NCT06018545 . Research in context What is already known on this topic AI-derived algorithms for the detection of pathological findings on non-contrast CT head (NCCTH) images have previously demonstrated strong diagnostic performance when used on retrospective datasets. AI-assisted image interpretation using these algorithms has been shown to enhance the diagnostic performance of general and neuro-radiologists in silico . The potential for AI to enhance the performance of less skilled readers who may encounter and be required to act on these images in clinical practice (e.g. non-specialist radiologists, emergency medicine clinicians and radiographers) is as yet untested, however. What this study adds This large multicase multireader study demonstrates that AI-assisted image interpretation may be used to enhance the in silico diagnostic performance of Emergency Department physicians to a level comparable to that of general radiologists. How this study might affect research, practice or policy This study raises the possibility that AI-assisted image interpretation could be used to assist non-radiologist clinicians in the safe interpretation of NCCTH scans. Further prospective research is required to test this hypothesis in clinical practice and explore the potential for AI-assisted interpretation to support safe discharge of patients with normal or low-risk scans.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,041 | 0,130 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».