Artificial Intelligence Neural Network Consistently Interprets Lung Ultrasound Artifacts in Hospitalized Patients: A Prospective Observational Study
Fox, T. H.; Gare, G.; Hutchins, L. E.; Perez, V. S.; Rodriguez, R.; Smith, D. L.; Brito-Encarnacion, F. X.; Danrad, R.; Tran, H. V.; Lowery, P. B.; Montgomery, D. J.; Zamora, K. A.; Krishnan, A.; Galeotti, J. M.; deBoisblanc, B. P.
Show abstract
BackgroundInterpretation of lung ultrasound artifacts by clinicians can be inconsistent. Artificial intelligence (AI) may perform this task more consistently. Research QuestionCan AI characterize lung ultrasound artifacts similarly to humans, and can AI interpretation be corroborated by clinical data? Study Design and MethodsLung sonograms (n=665) from a convenience sample of 172 subjects were prospectively obtained using a pre-specified protocol and matched to clinical and radiographic data. Three investigators scored sonograms for A-lines and B-lines. AI was trained using 142 subjects and then tested on a separate dataset of 30 patients. Three radiologists scored similar anatomic regions of contemporary radiographs for interstitial and alveolar infiltrates to corroborate sonographic findings. The ratio of oxyhemoglobin saturation:fraction of inspired oxygen (S/F) was also used for comparison. The primary outcome was the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the median investigator scoring of artifacts and AI interpretation. ResultsIn the test set, the correlation between the median investigator score and the AI score was moderate to good for A lines (ICC 0.73, 95% CI [0.53-0.89]), and moderate for B lines (ICC 0.66, 95% CI [0.55-0.75]). The degree of variability between the AI score and the median investigator score for each video was similar to the variability between each investigators score and the median score. The correlation among radiologists was moderate (ICC 0.59, 95% CI [0.52-0.82]) for interstitial infiltrates and poor for alveolar infiltrates (ICC 0.33, 95% CI [0.07-0.58]). There was a statistically significant correlation between AI scored B-lines and the degree of interstitial opacities for five of six lung zones. Neither AI nor human-scored artifacts were consistently associated with S/F. InterpretationUsing a limited dataset, we showed that AI can interpret lung ultrasound A-lines and B-lines in a fashion that could be clinically useful.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Longitudinal ultrasonic dimensions and parametric solid models of the gravid uterus and cervix 93%
- Accuracy of deep learning based computed tomography diagnostic system of COVID-19: a consecutive sampling external validation cohort study 93%
- Navigated ultrasound bronchoscopy with integrated positron emission tomography - A human feasibility study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Correlation Between Chest Computed Tomography And Lung Ultrasonography In Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 92%
- Validation of Left Ventricular High Frame Rate Echo-Particle Image Velocimetry against 4D Flow MRI in Patients 91%
- Strain patterns with ultrasound for improved assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm vessel wall biomechanics 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- MyoVision-US: an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Software for Automated Analysis of Skeletal Muscle Ultrasonography 95%
- Evaluation of the second-generation whole-heart motion correction algorithm (SSF2) used to demonstrate the aortic annulus on cardiac CT 94%
- Content-based image retrieval assists radiologists in diagnosing eye and orbital mass lesions in MRI 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Auto-detection of motion artifacts on CT pulmonary angiograms with a physician-trained AI algorithm 96%
- Passive Microwave Radiometry (MWR) for diagnostics of COVID-19 lung complications in Kyrgyzstan 92%
- A Machine Learning Ensemble Based on Radiomics to Predict BI-RADS Category and Reduce the Biopsy Rate of Ultrasound-Detected Suspicious Breast Masses 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.