Top

Insights into Imaging

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Artificial Intelligence | Original Article

Artificial intelligence abstracts from the European Congress of Radiology: analysis of topics and compliance with the STARD for abstracts checklist

Authors: Thomas Dratsch, Liliana Caldeira, David Maintz, Daniel Pinto dos Santos

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Objectives

To analyze all artificial intelligence abstracts presented at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2019 with regard to their topics and their adherence to the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) checklist.

Methods

A total of 184 abstracts were analyzed with regard to adherence to the STARD criteria for abstracts as well as the reported modality, body region, pathology, and use cases.

Results

Major topics of artificial intelligence abstracts were classification tasks in the abdomen, chest, and brain with CT being the most commonly used modality. Out of the 10 STARD for abstract criteria analyzed in the present study, on average, 5.32 (SD = 1.38) were reported by the 184 abstracts. Specifically, the highest adherence with STARD for abstracts was found for general interpretation of results of abstracts (100.0%, 184 of 184), clear study objectives (99.5%, 183 of 184), and estimates of diagnostic accuracy (96.2%, 177 of 184). The lowest STARD adherence was found for eligibility criteria for participants (9.2%, 17 of 184), type of study series (13.6%, 25 of 184), and implications for practice (20.7%, 44 of 184). There was no significant difference in the number of reported STARD criteria between abstracts accepted for oral presentation (M = 5.35, SD = 1.31) and abstracts accepted for the electronic poster session (M = 5.39, SD = 1.45) (p = .86).

Conclusions

The adherence with STARD for abstract was low, indicating that providing authors with the related checklist may increase the quality of abstracts.

Choy G, Khalilzadeh O, Michalski M et al (2018) Current applications and future impact of machine learning in radiology. Radiology 288:318–328. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171820 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lakhani P, Prater AB, Hutson RK et al (2018) Machine learning in radiology: applications beyond image interpretation. J Am Coll Radiol 15:350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.09.044 CrossRefPubMed

Yasaka K, Akai H, Abe O, Kiryu S (2018) Deep learning with CNN showed high diagnostic perfor- mance in differentiation of liver masses at dynamic CT. Radiology 286:887–896CrossRef

Yates EJ, Yates LC, Harvey H (2018) Machine learning “red dot”: open-source, cloud, deep convolutional neural networks in chest radiograph binary normality classification. Clin Radiol 73:827–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.05.015 CrossRefPubMed

Kim DH, MacKinnon T (2018) Artificial intelligence in fracture detection: transfer learning from deep convolutional neural networks. Clin Radiol 73:439–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.015 CrossRefPubMed

Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J et al (2018) Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer 18:500–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5

Kallianos K, Mongan J, Antani S et al (2019) How far have we come? Artificial intelligence for chest radiograph interpretation. Clin Radiol 74:338–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.12.015 CrossRefPubMed

Kahn CE (2019) Artificial intelligence, real radiology. Radiol Artif Intell 1:e184001. https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2019184001 CrossRef

Baxter A (2019) FDA approves first AI chest X-ray. In: Ai Healthc. https://www.aiin.healthcare/topics/diagnostics/fda-approves-first-ai-chest-x-ray

10.

Caccomo S (2018) FDA permits marketing of artificial intelligence algorithm for aiding providers in detecting wrist fractures. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-permits-marketing-artificial-intelligence-algorithm-aiding-providers-detecting-wrist-fractures

11.

Caccomo S (2018) FDA permits marketing of clinical decision support software for alerting providers of a potential stroke in patients

12.

Kim DW, Jang HY, Kim KW et al (2019) Design characteristics of studies reporting the performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for diagnostic analysis of medical images: results from recently published papers. Korean J Radiol 20:405–410. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0025 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Gatsonis CA et al (2017) STARD for abstracts: essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts. BMJ 358:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3751 CrossRef

14.

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 10:28–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001 CrossRefPubMed

15.

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2008) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):344–349

16.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ:339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700

17.

van Rossum G (2019) Python 3.7

18.

Park JE, Kim D, Kim HS et al (2020) Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement. Eur Radiol 30:523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06360-z CrossRefPubMed

19.

Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB et al (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162:W1. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0698 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Dewey M, Levine D, Bossuyt PM, Kressel HY (2019) Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers. Eur Radiol 29:3986–3995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5980-3 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dewey M, Schlattmann P (2019) Deep learning and medical diagnosis. Lancet 394:1710–1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32498-5 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Liu X, Faes L, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK (2019) Extension of the CONSORT and SPIRIT statements. Lancet 394:1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31819-7 CrossRefPubMed

23.

CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI Steering Group (2019) Reporting guidelines for clinical trials evaluating artificial intelligence interventions are needed. Nat Med 25:1467–1468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0603-3

24.

Bluemke DA, Moy L, Bredella MA et al (2020) Assessing radiology research on artificial intelligence: a brief guide for authors, reviewers, and readers—from the radiology editorial board. Radiology 294:487–489. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019192515

Title: Artificial intelligence abstracts from the European Congress of Radiology: analysis of topics and compliance with the STARD for abstracts checklist
Authors: Thomas Dratsch
Liliana Caldeira
David Maintz
Daniel Pinto dos Santos
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Artificial Intelligence
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00866-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Artificial intelligence abstracts from the European Congress of Radiology: analysis of topics and compliance with the STARD for abstracts checklist

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Combining molecular and imaging metrics in cancer: radiogenomics

Gastrointestinal perforation: clinical and MDCT clues for identification of aetiology

Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection

Non-neoplastic hepatopancreatobiliary lesions simulating malignancy: can we differentiate?

Utilization of breast MRI and breast MRI-guided biopsy in clinical practice: results of a survey in Québec and France

Thoracic abnormal air collections in patients in the intensive care unit: radiograph findings correlated with CT