MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229024388 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.121.263686

Explainable Deep Learning Improves Physician Interpretation of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

2022· article· en· W4229024388 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J.H. Miller, Keiichiro Kuronuma, Ananya Singh, Yuka Otaki, Sean W. Hayes, Panithaya Chareonthaitawee, Paul Kavanagh, Tejas Parekh, Balaji Tamarappoo, Tali Sharir, Andrew J. Einstein, Mathews B. Fish, Terrence D. Ruddy, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Albert J. Sinusas, Edward J. Miller, Timothy M. Bateman, Sharmila Dorbala, Marcelo F. Di Carli, Sebastien Cadet, Joanna X. Liang, Damini Dey, Daniel S. Berman, Piotr J. Slomka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMyocardial perfusion imagingInterpretation (philosophy)PerfusionMedicinePerfusion scanningNuclear medicineRadiologyComputer scienceMedical physicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence may improve accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) but will likely be implemented as an aid to physician interpretation rather than an autonomous tool. Deep learning (DL) has high standalone diagnostic accuracy for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), but its influence on physician interpretation is unknown. We assessed whether access to explainable DL predictions improves physician interpretation of MPI. <b>Methods:</b> We selected a representative cohort of patients who underwent MPI with reference invasive coronary angiography. Obstructive CAD, defined as stenosis ≥50% in the left main artery or ≥70% in other coronary segments, was present in half of the patients. We used an explainable DL model (CAD-DL), which was previously developed in a separate population from different sites. Three physicians interpreted studies first with clinical history, stress, and quantitative perfusion, then with all the data plus the DL results. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC). <b>Results:</b> In total, 240 patients with a median age of 65 y (interquartile range 58–73) were included. The diagnostic accuracy of physician interpretation with CAD-DL (AUC 0.779) was significantly higher than that of physician interpretation without CAD-DL (AUC 0.747, <i>P</i> = 0.003) and stress total perfusion deficit (AUC 0.718, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). With matched specificity, CAD-DL had higher sensitivity when operating autonomously compared with readers without DL results (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), but not compared with readers interpreting with DL results (<i>P</i> = 0.122). All readers had numerically higher accuracy with CAD-DL, with AUC improvement 0.02–0.05, and interpretation with DL resulted in overall net reclassification improvement of 17.2% (95% CI 9.2%–24.4%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). <b>Conclusion:</b> Explainable DL predictions lead to meaningful improvements in physician interpretation; however, the improvement varied across the readers, reflecting the acceptance of this new technology. This technique could be implemented as an aid to physician diagnosis, improving the diagnostic accuracy of MPI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207