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.
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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- PSMA-Hornet: fully-automated, multi-target segmentation of healthy organs in PSMA PET/CT images 96%
- Fully Automated Explainable Abdominal CT Contrast Media Phase Classification Using Organ Segmentation and Machine Learning 95%
- Phase Recognition in Contrast-Enhanced CT Scans based on Deep Learning and Random Sampling 95%
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%
- Assessing GPT-4 Multimodal Performance in Radiological Image Analysis 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
- AngioNet: A Convolutional Neural Network for Vessel Segmentation in X-ray Angiography 95%
- Inconsistency of AI in Intracranial Aneurysm Detection with Varying Dose and Image Reconstruction 95%
- Segmentation of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and surrounding vessels in CT images using deep convolutional neural networks and Texture Descriptors 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Enhancing Semantic Segmentation in Chest X-Ray Images through Image Preprocessing: ps-KDE for Pixel-wise Substitution by Kernel Density Estimation 96%
- Photon-counting cine-cardiac CT in the mouse 95%
- ai-corona : Radiologist-Assistant Deep Learning Framework for COVID-19 Diagnosis in Chest CT Scans 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Coronary artery calcium mass measurement based on integrated intensity and volume fraction techniques 94%
- Regional dynamics of fractal dimension of the left ventricular endocardium from cine computed tomography images 93%
- The Effect of Image Resolution on Automated Classification of Chest X-rays 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.