AI-based detection of contrast-enhancing MRI lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis

Background Contrast-enhancing (CE) lesions are an important finding on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) but can be missed easily. Automated solutions for reliable CE lesion detection are emerging; however, independent validation of artificial intelligen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Insights into imaging 2023-07, Vol.14 (1), p.123-123, Article 123
Hauptverfasser: Schlaeger, Sarah, Shit, Suprosanna, Eichinger, Paul, Hamann, Marco, Opfer, Roland, Krüger, Julia, Dieckmeyer, Michael, Schön, Simon, Mühlau, Mark, Zimmer, Claus, Kirschke, Jan S., Wiestler, Benedikt, Hedderich, Dennis M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Contrast-enhancing (CE) lesions are an important finding on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) but can be missed easily. Automated solutions for reliable CE lesion detection are emerging; however, independent validation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the clinical routine is still rare. Methods A three-dimensional convolutional neural network for CE lesion segmentation was trained externally on 1488 datasets of 934 MS patients from 81 scanners using concatenated information from FLAIR and T1-weighted post-contrast imaging. This externally trained model was tested on an independent dataset comprising 504 T1-weighted post-contrast and FLAIR image datasets of MS patients from clinical routine. Two neuroradiologists (R1, R2) labeled CE lesions for gold standard definition in the clinical test dataset. The algorithmic output was evaluated on both patient- and lesion-level. Results On a patient-level, recall, specificity, precision, and accuracy of the AI tool to predict patients with CE lesions were 0.75, 0.99, 0.91, and 0.96. The agreement between the AI tool and both readers was within the range of inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s kappa; AI vs. R1: 0.69; AI vs. R2: 0.76; R1 vs. R2: 0.76). On a lesion-level, false negative lesions were predominately found in infratentorial location, significantly smaller, and at lower contrast than true positive lesions ( p  
ISSN:1869-4101
1869-4101
DOI:10.1186/s13244-023-01460-3