Effect of emphysema on AI software and human reader performance in lung nodule detection from low-dose chest CT

• Published in: European radiology experimental Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. 63 - 11
• Main Authors: Sourlos, Nikos, Pelgrim, GertJan, Wisselink, Hendrik Joost, Yang, Xiaofei, de Jonge, Gonda, Rook, Mieneke, Prokop, Mathias, Sidorenkov, Grigory, van Tuinen, Marcel, Vliegenthart, Rozemarijn, van Ooijen, Peter M. A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Vienna Springer Vienna 20.05.2024; Springer Nature B.V; SpringerOpen
• Subjects: Aged; Artificial Intelligence; Diagnostic Radiology; Emphysema; Female; Humans; Imaging; Internal Medicine; Interventional Radiology; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Multiple pulmonary nodules; Neuroradiology; Original; Original Article; Pulmonary Emphysema - diagnostic imaging; Radiation Dosage; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiology; Sensitivity and Specificity; Software; Software validation; Solitary Pulmonary Nodule - diagnostic imaging; Tomography (x-ray computed); Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; Ultrasound; Software validation; Tomography (x-ray computed); Artificial intelligence; Emphysema; Multiple pulmonary nodules
• ISSN: 2509-9280; 2509-9280
• DOI: 10.1186/s41747-024-00459-9

Background Emphysema influences the appearance of lung tissue in computed tomography (CT). We evaluated whether this affects lung nodule detection by artificial intelligence (AI) and human readers (HR). Methods Individuals were selected from the “Lifelines” cohort who had undergone low-dose chest CT. Nodules in individuals without emphysema were matched to similar-sized nodules in individuals with at least moderate emphysema. AI results for nodular findings of 30–100 mm 3 and 101–300 mm 3 were compared to those of HR; two expert radiologists blindly reviewed discrepancies. Sensitivity and false positives (FPs)/scan were compared for emphysema and non-emphysema groups. Results Thirty-nine participants with and 82 without emphysema were included ( n  = 121, aged 61 ± 8 years (mean ± standard deviation), 58/121 males (47.9%)). AI and HR detected 196 and 206 nodular findings, respectively, yielding 109 concordant nodules and 184 discrepancies, including 118 true nodules. For AI, sensitivity was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.57–0.77) in emphysema versus 0.71 (0.62–0.78) in non-emphysema, with FPs/scan 0.51 and 0.22, respectively ( p  = 0.028). For HR, sensitivity was 0.76 (0.65–0.84) and 0.80 (0.72–0.86), with FPs/scan of 0.15 and 0.27 ( p  = 0.230). Overall sensitivity was slightly higher for HR than for AI, but this difference disappeared after the exclusion of benign lymph nodes. FPs/scan were higher for AI in emphysema than in non-emphysema ( p  = 0.028), while FPs/scan for HR were higher than AI for 30–100 mm 3 nodules in non-emphysema ( p  = 0.009). Conclusions AI resulted in more FPs/scan in emphysema compared to non-emphysema, a difference not observed for HR. Relevance statement In the creation of a benchmark dataset to validate AI software for lung nodule detection, the inclusion of emphysema cases is important due to the additional number of FPs. Key points • The sensitivity of nodule detection by AI was similar in emphysema and non-emphysema. • AI had more FPs/scan in emphysema compared to non-emphysema. • Sensitivity and FPs/scan by the human reader were comparable for emphysema and non-emphysema. • Emphysema and non-emphysema representation in benchmark dataset is important for validating AI. Graphical Abstract