There is a newer version of the record available.

Published 2024 | Version v1
Journal article

Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence algorithm versus radiologists for fracture detection on cervical spine CT

  • 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Isala, Dr. van Heesweg 2, Zwolle (Netherlands)
  • 2. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Dr. van Heesweg 2, Zwolle (Netherlands)
  • 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam (Netherlands)
  • 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Isala, Dr. van Heesweg 2, Zwolle (Netherlands)
  • 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam (Netherlands)
  • 6. Department of Trauma surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Maasstadweg 21, Rotterdam (Netherlands)
  • 7. Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam (Netherlands)

Description

To compare diagnostic accuracy of a deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) for cervical spine (C-spine) fracture detection on CT to attending radiologists and assess which undetected fractures were injuries in need of stabilising therapy (IST). This single-centre, retrospective diagnostic accuracy study included consecutive patients (age ≥ 18 years; 2007-2014) screened for C-spine fractures with CT. To validate ground truth, one radiologist and three neurosurgeons independently examined scans positive for fracture. Negative scans were followed up until 2022 through patient files and two radiologists reviewed negative scans that were flagged positive by AI. The neurosurgeons determined which fractures were ISTs. Diagnostic accuracy of AI and attending radiologists (index tests) were compared using McNemar. Of the 2368 scans (median age, 48, interquartile range 30-65; 1441 men) analysed, 221 (9.3%) scans contained C-spine fractures with 133 IST. AI detected 158/221 scans with fractures (sensitivity 71.5%, 95% CI 65.5-77.4%) and 2118/2147 scans without fractures (specificity 98.6%, 95% CI 98.2-99.1). In comparison, attending radiologists detected 195/221 scans with fractures (sensitivity 88.2%, 95% CI 84.0-92.5%, p < 0.001) and 2130/2147 scans without fracture (specificity 99.2%, 95% CI 98.8-99.6, p = 0.07). Of the fractures undetected by AI 30/63 were ISTs versus 4/26 for radiologists. AI detected 22/26 fractures undetected by the radiologists, including 3/4 undetected ISTs. Compared to attending radiologists, the artificial intelligence has a lower sensitivity and a higher miss rate of fractures in need of stabilising therapy; however, it detected most fractures undetected by the radiologists, including fractures in need of stabilising therapy. Clinical relevance statement The artificial intelligence algorithm missed more cervical spine fractures on CT than attending radiologists, but detected 84.6% of fractures undetected by radiologists, including fractures in need of stabilising therapy.

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
European Radiology (Internet)
Journal Volume
34
Journal Issue
8
Journal Page Range
p. 5041-5048
ISSN
1432-1084
CODEN
EURAE3