The use of machine learning to develop intelligent software tools for the interpretation of radiology images has gained widespread attention in recent years. The development, deployment, and eventual adoption of these models in clinical practice, however, remains fraught with challenges. In this paper, we propose a list of key considerations that machine learning researchers must recognize and address to make their models accurate, robust, and usable in practice. We discuss insufficient training data, decentralized data sets, high cost of annotations, ambiguous ground truth, imbalance in class representation, asymmetric misclassification costs, relevant performance metrics, generalization of models to unseen data sets, model decay, adversarial attacks, explainability, fairness and bias, and clinical validation. We describe each consideration and identify the techniques used to address it. Although these techniques have been discussed in prior research, by freshly examining them in the context of medical imaging and compiling them in the form of a laundry list, we hope to make them more accessible to researchers, software developers, radiologists, and other stakeholders.

No abstract

Background Cardiothoracic ratio (CTR) is the ratio of the diameter of the heart to the diameter of the thorax. An abnormal CTR (>0.55) is often an indicator of an underlying pathological condition. The accurate prediction of an abnormal CTR chest X-rays (CXRs) aids in the early diagnosis of clinical conditions. Purpose We propose a deep learning (DL)-based model for automatic CTR calculation to assist radiologists with rapid diagnosis of cardiomegaly and thus optimise the radiology flow. Material and Methods The study population included 1012 posteroanterior CXRs from a single institution. The Attention U-Net DL architecture was used for the automatic calculation of CTR. An observer performance test was conducted to assess the radiologist’s performance in diagnosing cardiomegaly with and without artificial intelligence assistance. Results U-Net model exhibited a sensitivity of 0.80 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85], specificity >99%, precision of 0.99 [95% CI: 0.98, 1], and a F1 score of 0.88 [95% CI: 0.85, 0.91]. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the reviewing radiologist in identifying cardiomegaly increased from 40.50% to 88.4% when aided by the AI-generated CTR. Conclusion Our segmentation-based AI model demonstrated high specificity (>99%) and sensitivity (80%) for CTR calculation. The performance of the radiologist on the observer performance test improved significantly with provision of AI assistance. A DL-based segmentation model for rapid quantification of CTR can therefore have significant potential to be used in clinical workflows by reducing radiologists’ burden and alerting to an abnormal enlarged heart early on.

No abstract

No abstract