Paper detail

Re-defining Radiology Quality Assurance (QA) -- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based QA by Restricted Investigation of Unequal Scores (AQUARIUS)

There is an urgent need for streamlining radiology Quality Assurance (QA) programs to make them better and faster. Here, we present a novel approach, Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based QUality Assurance by Restricted Investigation of Unequal Scores (AQUARIUS), for re-defining radiology QA, which reduces human effort by up to several orders of magnitude over existing approaches. AQUARIUS typically includes automatic comparison of AI-based image analysis with natural language processing (NLP) on radiology reports. Only the usually small subset of cases with discordant reads is subsequently reviewed by human experts. To demonstrate the clinical applicability of AQUARIUS, we performed a clinical QA study on Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH) detection in 1936 head CT scans from a large academic hospital. Immediately following image acquisition, scans were automatically analyzed for ICH using a commercially available software (Aidoc, Tel Aviv, Israel). Cases rated positive for ICH by AI (ICH-AI+) were automatically flagged in radiologists' reading worklists, where flagging was randomly switched off with probability 50%. Using AQUARIUS with NLP on final radiology reports and targeted expert neuroradiology review of only 29 discordantly classified cases reduced the human QA effort by 98.5%, where we found a total of six non-reported true ICH+ cases, with radiologists' missed ICH detection rates of 0.52% and 2.5% for flagged and non-flagged cases, respectively. We conclude that AQUARIUS, by combining AI-based image analysis with NLP-based pre-selection of cases for targeted human expert review, can efficiently identify missed findings in radiology studies and significantly expedite radiology QA programs in a hybrid human-machine interoperability approach.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.