Scholarlink

<p>Plain pelvic radiographs (PXR) remain crucial for initial trauma assessment, yet interpretation challenges persist. While artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise, its practical impact across specialties remains unexplored. We conducted a retrospective image-based, multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study using a standardized, prospectively planned evaluation protocol. A total of 26 physicians (8 radiologists, 10 emergency physicians, 8 trauma surgeons) interpreted 150 PXRs in three sequential sessions: without AI, with AI-alert, and with AI-visual guidance. AI assistance improved overall diagnostic accuracy from 0.870 to 0.940 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and reduced interpretation time from 22.70 to 9.58 s (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Non-radiologists showed substantial improvements, with emergency physicians demonstrating increases in specificity (26.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.006) and positive predictive value (41.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.006). Trauma surgeons with AI-visual guidance achieved comparable accuracy to unaided radiologists (0.940 vs. 0.920, <i>p</i> = 0.556). Tailored AI assistance effectively bridges the performance gap between radiologists and non-radiologists while reducing reading time. These findings suggest AI integration could enhance clinical workflow efficiency across specialties in trauma care settings.</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

Comparative analysis of AI support levels in clinical interpretation of traumatic pelvic radiographs

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月13日

查看全文
  • Yu-San Tee,
  • Jen-Fu Huang,
  • Yu-Ting Huang,
  • Chi-Po Hsu,
  • Huan-Wu Chen,
  • Chi-Hsun Hsieh,
  • Chih-Yuan Fu,
  • Chi-Tung Cheng,
  • Chien-Hung Liao

摘要

Plain pelvic radiographs (PXR) remain crucial for initial trauma assessment, yet interpretation challenges persist. While artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise, its practical impact across specialties remains unexplored. We conducted a retrospective image-based, multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study using a standardized, prospectively planned evaluation protocol. A total of 26 physicians (8 radiologists, 10 emergency physicians, 8 trauma surgeons) interpreted 150 PXRs in three sequential sessions: without AI, with AI-alert, and with AI-visual guidance. AI assistance improved overall diagnostic accuracy from 0.870 to 0.940 (p < 0.001) and reduced interpretation time from 22.70 to 9.58 s (p < 0.001). Non-radiologists showed substantial improvements, with emergency physicians demonstrating increases in specificity (26.2%, p = 0.006) and positive predictive value (41.5%, p = 0.006). Trauma surgeons with AI-visual guidance achieved comparable accuracy to unaided radiologists (0.940 vs. 0.920, p = 0.556). Tailored AI assistance effectively bridges the performance gap between radiologists and non-radiologists while reducing reading time. These findings suggest AI integration could enhance clinical workflow efficiency across specialties in trauma care settings.