Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38663992›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024

Assessing the Performance of Artificial Intelligence Models: Insights from the American Society of Functional Neuroradiology Artificial Intelligence Competition.

Bin Jiang, Burak B Ozkara, Guangming Zhu, Derek Boothroyd, Jason W Allen, Daniel P Barboriak, Peter Chang, Cynthia Chan, Ruchir Chaudhari, Hui Chen and 21 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

31 authors.

Bin JiangFrom the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0002-8507-0459
Burak B OzkaraDepartment of Neuroradiology (B.B.O., H.C., M.W.), MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Guangming ZhuDepartment of Neurology (G.Zhu), The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Derek BoothroydDepartment of Medicine (D.B., V.D.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Jason W AllenDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (J.W.A.), Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Daniel P BarboriakDepartment of Radiology (D.P.B.), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0002-2536-6266
Peter ChangDepartment of Radiological Sciences (P.C.), University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
Cynthia ChanFrom the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Ruchir ChaudhariFrom the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Hui ChenDepartment of Neuroradiology (B.B.O., H.C., M.W.), MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Anjeza ChukusFrom the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Victoria DingDepartment of Medicine (D.B., V.D.), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
David DouglasFrom the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0003-1021-534X
Christopher G FilippiDepartment of Radiology (C.G.F.), Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-4565-2614
Adam E FlandersDepartment of Radiology (A.E.F.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-4679-0787
Ryan GodwinDepartment of Radiology (R.G.), University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Syed HashmiFrom the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0003-4616-7984
Christopher HessDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (C.H.), University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.ORCID 0000-0002-5132-5302
Kevin HsuDepartment of Radiology (K.H., Y.W.L), New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0003-4995-0990
Yvonne W LuiDepartment of Radiology (K.H., Y.W.L), New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-9984-9164
Joseph A MaldjianDepartment of Radiology (J.A.M., S.S.N.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-6384-1072
Patrik MichelDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences (P.M.), Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4954-7579
Sahil S NalawadeDepartment of Radiology (J.A.M., S.S.N.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-5440-8357
Vishal PatelDepartment of Radiology (V.P.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
Prashant RaghavanDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (P.R.), University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Haris I SairThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (H.I.S.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-5077-0471
Jody TanabeDepartment of Radiology (J.T.), University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.ORCID 0000-0002-7110-8444
Kirk WelkerDepartment of Radiology (K.W.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0003-1293-2887
Christopher T WhitlowDepartment of Radiology (C.T.W), Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.ORCID 0000-0003-2392-8293
Greg ZaharchukFrom the Department of Radiology (B.J., C.C., R.C., A.C., D.D., S.H., G.Zaharchuk), Neuroradiology Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Max WintermarkDepartment of Neuroradiology (B.B.O., H.C., M.W.), MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas max.wintermark@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6726-3951

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeArtificial intelligence models in radiology are frequently developed and validated using data sets from a single institution and are rarely tested on independent, external data sets, raising questions about their generalizability and applicability in clinical practice. The American Society of Functional Neuroradiology (ASFNR) organized a multicenter artificial intelligence competition to evaluate the proficiency of developed models in identifying various pathologies on NCCT, assessing age-based normality and estimating medical urgency. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn total, 1201 anonymized, full-head NCCT clinical scans from 5 institutions were pooled to form the data set. The data set encompassed studies with normal findings as well as those with pathologies, including acute ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, and mass effect (detection of these, task 1). NCCTs were also assessed to determine if findings were consistent with expected brain changes for the patient's age (task 2: age-based normality assessment) and to identify any abnormalities requiring immediate medical attention (task 3: evaluation of findings for urgent intervention). Five neuroradiologists labeled each NCCT, with consensus interpretations serving as the ground truth. The competition was announced online, inviting academic institutions and companies. Independent central analysis assessed the performance of each model. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each artificial intelligence model, along with the area under the ROC curve.

resultsFour teams processed 1177 studies. The median age of patients was 62 years, with an interquartile range of 33 years. Nineteen teams from various academic institutions registered for the competition. Of these, 4 teams submitted their final results. No commercial entities participated in the competition. For task 1, areas under the ROC curve ranged from 0.49 to 0.59. For task 2, two teams completed the task with area under the ROC curve values of 0.57 and 0.52. For task 3, teams had little-to-no agreement with the ground truth.

conclusionsTo assess the performance of artificial intelligence models in real-world clinical scenarios, we analyzed their performance in the ASFNR Artificial Intelligence Competition. The first ASFNR Competition underscored the gap between expectation and reality; and the models largely fell short in their assessments. As the integration of artificial intelligence tools into clinical workflows increases, neuroradiologists must carefully recognize the capabilities, constraints, and consistency of these technologies. Before institutions adopt these algorithms, thorough validation is essential to ensure acceptable levels of performance in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAdultAgedBrain DiseasesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySocieties, MedicalTomography, X-Ray ComputedUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38663992
PMCPMC11392353

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.