How does artificial intelligence effect on the assessment of lung damage in COVID-19 on chest CT scan?

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During the pandemic, computed tomography (CT) was one of the most important tools for assessing COVID-19-related lung changes. In COVID-19 patients, radiologists in Moscow used the adapted CT0-4 scale to visually assess the dependence of the severity of the general condition on the nature and severity of radiological signs of changes in the lungs based on computed tomography. In a large stream of scans, the doctor may miss findings and make errors in assessing the volume of lung damage, so the use of AI services in outpatient healthcare during a pandemic can be beneficial.

AIM: The goal of this study is to compare the distribution of CT0-4 categories designed by radiologists with the results of AI services processing and categories formed without AI services.

METHODS: We used retrospective study design, full study protocol is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04489992). The results of primary CT scans with the CT0-4 categories were analyzed in outpatient medical institutions of the Health Department from April 08, 2020, to December 01, 2020, and separately for November (from November 01, 2020, to December 01, 2020). CT was performed on 48 computed tomographs in accordance with standard protocols, and the data was processed by the single radiology information systems. CTs in the test group received AI services, while CTs in the control group did not. The analysis includes five AI services: RADLogics COVID-19 (RADLogics, USA), COVID-IRA (IRA labs, Russia), Care Mentor AI, COVID (Care Mentor AI, Russia), Third Opinion. CT-COVID-19 (Third Opinion, Russia), and COVID-MULTIVOX (Gammamed, Russia). Moreover, AI services are encoded at random.

RESULTS: The CT scan results of 260,594 patients were examined (m/f % = 44/56, mean age = 49.5). The test group consisted of 115,618 CT scans, while the control group consisted of 144,976 CT scans. Depending on the specific AI service, CT0 was established by 2.3–18.5% less than the control group for different subgroups of categories. The categories CT3-4 were established by 4.7–27.6% less than without AI, and the categories CT4 by 40–60% less than without AI (p < 0.0001). For November (from November 01, 2020, to December 01, 2020), the CT scan results of 41,386 patients were analyzed (m/f % = 44/56, average age = 53.2 years). The test group consisted of 28,881 CT scans, while the control group included 12,505 CT scans. Depending on the specific AI service, CT0 was established by 1–2.6% less than the control group for different subgroups of categories. Further, the categories CT3–CT4 were established by 0.2–15.7% less than without AI, and the categories CT4 were established by 25% less than without AI (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION: The use of AI services for primary CT scans on an outpatient basis reduces the number of CT0 and CT3–CT4 results, which can influence the therapeutic approach for COVID-19 patients.

About the authors

Sergey P. Morozov

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: morozov@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6545-6170
SPIN-code: 8542-1720
Scopus Author ID: 57200964938
ResearcherId: T-9163-2017

Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Valeria Y. Chernina

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: v.chernina@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0302-293X
SPIN-code: 8896-8051
Scopus Author ID: 57210638679
ResearcherId: AAF-1215-2020

MD

Russian Federation, Moscow

Anna E. Andreychenko

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: a.andreychenko@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6359-0763
SPIN-code: 6625-4186
Scopus Author ID: 42960997200
ResearcherId: E-4930-2017

Cand. Sci. (Phys.-Math.)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Anton V. Vladzymyrskyy

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: a.vladzimirsky@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2990-7736
SPIN-code: 3602-7120
Scopus Author ID: 8944262100
ResearcherId: D-1447-2017

Dr. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Olesya А. Mokienko

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Email: Lesya.md@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7826-5135
SPIN-code: 8088-9921
Scopus Author ID: 55155448000
ResearcherId: J-3210-2016

Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Victor A. Gombolevskiy

Moscow Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine

Author for correspondence.
Email: v.gombolevskiy@npcmr.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1816-1315
SPIN-code: 6810-3279
Scopus Author ID: 57196441765
ResearcherId: J-3389-2017
https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57204359134

Cand. Sci. (Med.), Head of Medical Research Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Experiment on the use of innovative computer vision technologies for medical image analysis and subsequent applicability in the healthcare system of Moscow [cited 2021 Feb 04]. (In Russ). Available from: https://mosmed.ai
  2. Morozov SP, Ledikhova NV, Panina EV, et al. Re: Controversy in coronaViral Imaging and Diagnostics (COVID). Clin Radiol. 2020;75(11):871–872. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.07.023
  3. Chang YC, Yu CJ, Chang SC, et al. Pulmonary sequelae in convalescent patients after severe acute respiratory syndrome: evaluation with thin-section CT. Radiology. 2005;236(3):1067–1075. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2363040958
  4. Haseli S, Khalili N, Bakhshayeshkaram M, et al. Lobar distribution of COVID-19 pneumonia based on chest computed tomography findings. A retrospective study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2020;8(1):e55.
  5. Inui S, Fujikawa A, Jitsu M, et al. Chest CT findings in cases from the cruise ship “Diamond Princess” with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020;2(2):e200110. doi: 10.1148/ryct.2020200110
  6. Prokop M, van Everdingen W, van Rees Vellinga T, et al. CO-RADS: A Categorical CT assessment scheme for patients suspected of having COVID-19-definition and evaluation. Radiology. 2020;296(2):97–104. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201473
  7. Shen C, Yu N, Cai S, et al. Quantitative computed tomography analysis for stratifying the severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019. J Pharm Anal. 2020;10(2):123–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2020.03.004
  8. Pan F, Ye T, Sun P, et al. Time course of lung changes at chest CT during recovery from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Radiology. 2020;295(3):715–721. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200370
  9. Revel MP, Parkar AP, Prosch H, et al. COVID-19 patients and the radiology department – advice from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI). Eur Radiol. 2020;30(9):4903–4909. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06865-y
  10. Morozov SP, Protsenko DN, Smetanina SV, et al. Radiation diagnosis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19): organization, methodology, interpretation of results: preprint II. Version 2 of 17.04.2020. The series “Best practices of radiation and instrumental diagnostics”. Issue 65. Moscow: Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Health Care Department; 2020. 78 p. (In Russ).
  11. Sinitsyn VE, Tyurin IE, Mitkov VV. Consensus Guidelines of Russian Society of Radiology (RSR) and Russian Association of Specialists in Ultrasound Diagnostics in Medicine (RASUDM) “Role of Imaging (X-ray, CT and US) in Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia” (version 2). Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2020;101(2):72–89. (In Russ). doi: 10.20862/0042-4676-2020-101-2-72-89
  12. Morozov SP, Gombolevskiy VA, Cherninа VY, et al. Prediction of lethal outcomes in COVID-19 cases based on the results chest computed tomography. Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases. 2020;98(6):7–14. (In Russ). doi: 10.21292/2075-1230-2020-98-6-7-14
  13. Howard J. Cognitive errors and diagnostic mistakes. A case-based guide to critical thinking in medicine. New York: Springer; 2019.
  14. Morozov SP, Vladzimirsky AV, Klyashtorny VG, et al. Clinical trials of software based on intelligent technologies (radiation diagnostics). The series “Best practices of radiation and instrumental diagnostics”. Issue 57. Moscow: Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Health Care Department; 2019. 51 p. (In Russ).
  15. Sahiner B, Pezeshk A, Hadjiiski LM, et al. Deep learning in medical imaging and radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2019;46(1):1–36. doi: 10.1002/mp.13264
  16. Allen BJ, Seltzer SE, Langlotz CP, et al. A road map for translational research on artificial intelligence in medical imaging: from the 2018 national institutes of health/RSNA/ACR/The academy workshop. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(9):1179–1189. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.04.014
  17. Angus DC. Randomized clinical trials of artificial intelligence. Jama. 2020;323(11):1043–1045. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1039
  18. Wijnberge M, Geerts BF, Hol L, et al. Effect of a machine learning-derived early warning system for intraoperative hypotension vs standard care on depth and duration of intraoperative hypotension during elective noncardiac surgery: the HYPE randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2020;323(11):1052–1060. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0592
  19. Carlile M, Hurt B, Hsiao A, et al. Deployment of artificial intelligence for radiographic diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency department. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020;1(6):1459–1464. doi: 10.1002/emp2.12297
  20. Morozov SP, Chernina VYu, Blokhin IA, et al. Chest computed tomography for outcome prediction in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19: A retrospective analysis of 38,051 cases. Digital Diagnostics. 2020;1(1):27−36. (In Russ). doi: 10.17816/DD46791

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Chronology of the use of AI services for COVID-19 diagnosis according to computed tomography of the thoracic organs (CT TO).

Download (168KB)
3. Fig. 2. Examples of original (control group) and additional CT series from various AI services (test group with subgroups) with demonstration of automatic image processing for segmentation of lung lesions in COVID-19, as well as summary information on lung damage and DICOM SR information.

Download (450KB)
4. Fig. 3. Results of comparison of primary chest CT scans performed in outpatient CT centers in terms of the severity of CT 0–4 categories between the control group and test subgroups for the entire period (April 8, 2020–December 1, 2020). n=260 594; p <0,0001.

Download (301KB)
5. Fig. 4. Results of comparison of primary chest CT scans performed in outpatient CT centers, according to the severity of the CT 0–4 categories between the control group and test subgroups for November 2020. n=41 386; p=0,0010.

Download (309KB)

Copyright (c) 2021 Morozov S.P., Chernina V.Y., Andreychenko A.E., Vladzymyrskyy A.V., Mokienko O.А., Gombolevskiy V.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies