A real-world evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists using positive predictive values verified from deep learning and natural language processing chest algorithms deployed retrospectively

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This diagnostic study assessed the accuracy of radiologists retrospectively, using the deep learning and natural language processing chest algorithms implemented in Clinical Review version 3.2 for: pneumothorax, rib fractures in digital chest X-ray radiographs (CXR); aortic aneurysm, pulmonary nodules, emphysema, and pulmonary embolism in CT images. Methods The study design was double-blind (artificial intelligence [AI] algorithms and humans), retrospective, non-interventional, and at a single NHS Trust. Adult patients (≥18 years old) scheduled for CXR and CT were invited to enroll as participants through an opt-out process. Reports and images were de-identified, processed retrospectively, and AI-flagged discrepant findings were assigned to two lead radiologists, each blinded to patient identifiers and original radiologist. The radiologist’s findings for each clinical condition were tallied as a verified discrepancy (true positive) or not (false positive). Results The missed findings were: 0.02% rib fractures, 0.51% aortic aneurysm, 0.32% pulmonary nodules, 0.92% emphysema, and 0.28% pulmonary embolism. The positive predictive values (PPVs) were: pneumothorax (0%), rib fractures (5.6%), aortic dilatation (43.2%), pulmonary emphysema (46.0%), pulmonary embolus (11.5%), and pulmonary nodules (9.2%). The PPV for pneumothorax was nil owing to lack of available studies that were analysed for outpatient activity. Conclusions The number of missed findings was far less than generally predicted. The chest algorithms deployed retrospectively were a useful quality tool and AI augmented the radiologists’ workflow. Advances in knowledge The diagnostic accuracy of our radiologists generated missed findings of 0.02% for rib fractures CXR, 0.51% for aortic dilatation, 0.32% for pulmonary nodule, 0.92% for pulmonary emphysema, and 0.28% for pulmonary embolism for CT studies, all retrospectively evaluated with AI used as a quality tool to flag potential missed findings. It is important to account for prevalence of these chest conditions in clinical context and use appropriate clinical thresholds for decision-making, not relying solely on AI.