Economic costing of evaluating, deploying and monitoring an artificial intelligence-based reconstruction for acceleration of rectal MRI examinations
Harrison, C. A.; Wu, M.; White, O.; Hopkinson, G.; Hughes, J.; Robertson, S.; Scurr, E.; Shur, J.; Castagnoli, F.; Charles-Edwards, G.; Koh, D.-M.; Winfield, J.
Show abstract
Objectives: AI-based reconstructions can reduce MRI acquisition times and/or improve image quality. Guidelines recommend clinical evaluations and post-deployment monitoring of these novel methods, however, there has been little investigation of the clinical resources required for such assessments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the healthcare resource utilisation and potential savings associated with AI-based reconstructions in rectal MRI. Methods: A retrospective economic costing analysis was conducted from the NHS healthcare perspective. Resource utilisation data were extracted from the Electronic Patient Records for 9 healthy volunteer scans and 104 rectal MRI examinations evaluating an AI-based reconstruction. The resource profile included the MRI scan and the staff time required for data acquisition and analysis. Results: The clinical evaluation of the AI-based reconstruction cost {pound}15,023. Deployment of the AI-based reconstruction reduced the length of an MRI rectum scan by 22 minutes, theoretically saving approximately {pound}3,437 per month. Addition of post-deployment quality control scans reduced this monthly saving to {pound}2,636. If the quality control scans were evaluated using radiologists rather than image quality metrics, monthly savings would be approximately {pound}2,541. With ongoing quality control, the clinical evaluation cost would be recouped between 5.8 and 6 months, compared with 4.4 months without ongoing quality control. Conclusions: Deploying AI-based reconstructions can yield cost savings through reduced scanning times. Quality control tests using image quality metrics would save radiological burden and reduce costs compared with conducting repeated image scoring by radiologists.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Inconsistency of AI in Intracranial Aneurysm Detection with Varying Dose and Image Reconstruction 95%
- Automated cervix biometry, volumetry and normative models for 3D motion-corrected T2-weighted 0.55-3T fetal MRI during 2nd and 3rd trimesters 92%
- Does contrast-enhancement improve visualisation of lenticulostriate arteries in cerebral small vessel disease using time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography at 7 Tesla? 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Large Language Model-Generated Brain MRI Protocols: Performance of GPT4o, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen2.5-72B 94%
- First-generation clinical dual-source photon-counting CT: ultra-low dose quantitative spectral imaging 93%
- Impact of Non-Contrast Enhanced Imaging Input Sequences on the Generation of Virtual Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI Scans using Neural Networks 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large language model-based information extraction from free-text radiology reports: a scoping review protocol 89%
- Protocol of the observational study STRATUM-OS: First step in the development and validation of the STRATUM tool based on multimodal data processing to assist surgery in patients affected by intra-axial brain tumours 88%
- Surgical Resection, Radiotherapy, And Percutaneous Thermal Ablation for Treatment of Stage 1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patient-derived PixelPrint phantoms for evaluating clinical imaging performance of a deep learning CT reconstruction algorithm 93%
- Reproducible spectral CT thermometry with liver-mimicking phantoms for image-guided thermal ablation 93%
- Deep learning-based auto-segmentation of swallowing and chewing structures 92%
"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.