Back

Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Detection of Vascular Perfusion Defects on Ventilation/Perfusion (V/Q) Scintigraphy for Pulmonary Embolism

Jabbarpour, A.; Moulton, E.; Kaviani, S.; Zeng, W.; Ghassel, S.; Akbarian, R.; Couture, A.; Roy, A.; Liu, R.; Al-ali, Y.; Foufa, Y.; Hejji, N.; AlSulaiman, S.; Shirazi, Z.; Leung, E.; Klein, R.

2026-07-08 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.06.25.26356599 medRxiv
Show abstract

Accurate interpretation of planar ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy, used for diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) based on PIOPED/EANM guidelines, requires objective assessment of mismatched V/Q defects. Manual delineation of V/Q defects is time-consuming, subject to interobserver variability, and rarely performed in practice, limiting standardized reporting and quantification of disease burden. To address these challenges, we evaluated four modern AI models for automated segmentation of vascular perfusion defects in planar V/Q scans and compared their performance to human annotators. We retrospectively identified 2,118 patients who underwent planar V/Q scans at The Ottawa Hospital (June 2019-February 2023). Six standard projections (ANT, POST, LAO, RAO, LPO, RPO) were included. Four 2D neural networks (U-Net, nnU-Net, Swin UNETR, and a Bottleneck Transformer U-Net [BTU-Net]) were trained on 1,313 patients (7,878 projections) and validated on 329 (1,974 projections) using physician-annotated defects. A hold-out test set of 46 high probability patients was used to evaluate segmentation quality, and defect detection accuracy using free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) analysis, where BTU-Net was the only model performing on par with human readers, showing robust sensitivity across the entire range of segmentation probabilities. At 1.5 false positives per projection rate (FPPR), BTU-Net outperformed other models with a sensitivity of 0.529 {+/-} 0.026, On a separate hold-out set of low likelihood of disease patients (n=430), the lowest FPPR was 0.08 {+/-} 0.01 for BTU-Net (P<0.0001). BTU-Net enables rapid, consistent, and accurate interpretation of planar V/Q scans. Such tools may enhance diagnostic efficiency, standardize reporting, and support non-expert readers in evaluating PE.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.0%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 3%
12.2%
3
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
7.5%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.4%
5
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.2%
6
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
7
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.3%
8
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
9
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.7%
10
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
11
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
Rheumatology
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
14
Journal of Clinical Investigation
179 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
15
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
16
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
17
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
18
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
20
Photoacoustics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
21
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
22
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
23
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.1%
24
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
25
Frontiers in Endocrinology
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
27
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
28
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
29
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
30
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%