Back

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.

2023-03-05 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2023.03.02.23286687 medRxiv
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.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.8%
2
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
10.3%
4
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.9%
6
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
7
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
8
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
9
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
10
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.8%
11
Placenta
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
12
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
13
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
15
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
16
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
17
Children
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
102 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
20
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.5%
23
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.5%
24
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
23 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
25
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
26
Rheumatology
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
27
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
28
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%