2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.04.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of brain age from routine T2-weighted spin-echo brain magnetic resonance images with a deep convolutional neural network

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With respect to the AUROC values, the performance of the standalone AI algorithm in the external validation study (0.992 and 0.977 in patient-and slice-wise analyses, respectively) and reader assessment study (0.9874 and 0.9671 in patient-and slice-wise analyses, respectively) were comparable with the performance of the neuroradiologist subgroup without AI assistance (0.9764 and 0.9691 in patient-and slice-wise analyses, respectively). These diagnostic accuracies were higher than those reported by the majority of previous studies 7,8,10,11,13,15 and were comparable with the results achieved in a previous study (AUROC = 0.991), which reported that AI standalone performance was comparable with that of highly trained experts 13 . Furthermore, in the present study, the high sensitivity of 95.89% and specificity of 95.33% achieved by our approach at a cut-off level of 39.84% in the patient-wise analysis was higher than those achieved by reviewers without AI assistance (94.37% and 95.04%, respectively).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…With respect to the AUROC values, the performance of the standalone AI algorithm in the external validation study (0.992 and 0.977 in patient-and slice-wise analyses, respectively) and reader assessment study (0.9874 and 0.9671 in patient-and slice-wise analyses, respectively) were comparable with the performance of the neuroradiologist subgroup without AI assistance (0.9764 and 0.9691 in patient-and slice-wise analyses, respectively). These diagnostic accuracies were higher than those reported by the majority of previous studies 7,8,10,11,13,15 and were comparable with the results achieved in a previous study (AUROC = 0.991), which reported that AI standalone performance was comparable with that of highly trained experts 13 . Furthermore, in the present study, the high sensitivity of 95.89% and specificity of 95.33% achieved by our approach at a cut-off level of 39.84% in the patient-wise analysis was higher than those achieved by reviewers without AI assistance (94.37% and 95.04%, respectively).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Despite the clinical relevance of diagnosing AIH using brain CT scans—false negatives may delay correct diagnosis, which can cause devastating consequences, whereas false positives will lead to unnecessary examinations—prompt and accurate assessment of AIH using brain CT scans remains a challenge for physicians. In addition, the high volumes of imaging data that require assessment place a significant burden on radiologists who need to maintain diagnostic accuracy and efficiency 7 , 8 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations