Scholarlink

Objective <p>To compare the quality of AI-ADC maps and standard ADC maps in a multi-reader study.</p> Materials and methods <p>Multi-reader study included 74 consecutive patients (median age = 66 years, [IQR = 57.25–71.75 years]; median PSA = 4.30 ng/mL [IQR = 1.33–7.75 ng/mL]) with suspected or confirmed PCa, who underwent mpMRI between October 2023 and January 2024. The study was conducted in two rounds, separated by a 4-week wash-out period. In each round, four readers evaluated T2W-MRI and standard or AI-generated ADC (AI-ADC) maps. Fleiss’ kappa, quadratic-weighted Cohen’s kappa statistics were used to assess inter-reader agreement. Linear mixed effect models were employed to compare the quality evaluation of standard versus AI-ADC maps.</p> Results <p>AI-ADC maps exhibited significantly enhanced imaging quality compared to standard ADC maps with higher ratings in windowing ease (β = 0.67 [95% CI 0.30–1.04], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), prostate boundary delineation (β = 1.38 [95% CI 1.03–1.73], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), reductions in distortion (β = 1.68 [95% CI 1.30–2.05], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), noise (β = 0.56 [95% CI 0.24–0.88], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). AI-ADC maps reduced reacquisition requirements for all readers (β = 2.23 [95% CI 1.69–2.76], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), supporting potential workflow efficiency gains. No differences were observed between AI-ADC and standard ADC maps’ inter-reader agreement.</p> Conclusion <p>Our multi-reader study demonstrated that AI-ADC maps improved prostate boundary delineation, had lower image noise, fewer distortions, and higher overall image quality compared to ADC maps.</p> Key Points <p><Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Question</Emphasis> <i>Can we synthesize apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps with AI to achieve higher quality maps?</i></p> <p><Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Findings</Emphasis> <i>On average, readers rated quality factors of AI-ADC maps higher than&#xa0;ADC maps in 34.80% of cases, compared to 5.07% for ADC (p &lt; 0.01).</i></p> <p><Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Clinical relevance</Emphasis> <i>AI-ADC maps may serve as a reliable diagnostic support tool thanks to their high quality, particularly when the acquired ADC maps include artifacts.</i></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Artificial intelligence–generated apparent diffusion coefficient (AI-ADC) maps for prostate gland assessment: a multi-reader study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月21日

查看全文
  • Kutsev Bengisu Ozyoruk,
  • Stephanie A. Harmon,
  • Enis C. Yilmaz,
  • Erich P. Huang,
  • David G. Gelikman,
  • Sonia Gaur,
  • Francesco Giganti,
  • Yan Mee Law,
  • Daniel J. Margolis,
  • Pavan Kumar Jadda,
  • Sitarama Raavi,
  • Sandeep Gurram,
  • Bradford J. Wood,
  • Peter A. Pinto,
  • Peter L. Choyke,
  • Baris Turkbey

摘要

Objective

To compare the quality of AI-ADC maps and standard ADC maps in a multi-reader study.

Materials and methods

Multi-reader study included 74 consecutive patients (median age = 66 years, [IQR = 57.25–71.75 years]; median PSA = 4.30 ng/mL [IQR = 1.33–7.75 ng/mL]) with suspected or confirmed PCa, who underwent mpMRI between October 2023 and January 2024. The study was conducted in two rounds, separated by a 4-week wash-out period. In each round, four readers evaluated T2W-MRI and standard or AI-generated ADC (AI-ADC) maps. Fleiss’ kappa, quadratic-weighted Cohen’s kappa statistics were used to assess inter-reader agreement. Linear mixed effect models were employed to compare the quality evaluation of standard versus AI-ADC maps.

Results

AI-ADC maps exhibited significantly enhanced imaging quality compared to standard ADC maps with higher ratings in windowing ease (β = 0.67 [95% CI 0.30–1.04], p < 0.05), prostate boundary delineation (β = 1.38 [95% CI 1.03–1.73], p < 0.001), reductions in distortion (β = 1.68 [95% CI 1.30–2.05], p < 0.001), noise (β = 0.56 [95% CI 0.24–0.88], p < 0.001). AI-ADC maps reduced reacquisition requirements for all readers (β = 2.23 [95% CI 1.69–2.76], p < 0.001), supporting potential workflow efficiency gains. No differences were observed between AI-ADC and standard ADC maps’ inter-reader agreement.

Conclusion

Our multi-reader study demonstrated that AI-ADC maps improved prostate boundary delineation, had lower image noise, fewer distortions, and higher overall image quality compared to ADC maps.

Key Points

Question Can we synthesize apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps with AI to achieve higher quality maps?

Findings On average, readers rated quality factors of AI-ADC maps higher than ADC maps in 34.80% of cases, compared to 5.07% for ADC (p < 0.01).

Clinical relevance AI-ADC maps may serve as a reliable diagnostic support tool thanks to their high quality, particularly when the acquired ADC maps include artifacts.