A tree-based decision model to support prediction of the severity of asthma exacerbations in children

This paper describes the development of a tree-based decision model to predict the severity of pediatric asthma exacerbations in the emergency department (ED) at 2 h following triage. The model was constructed from retrospective patient data abstracted from the ED charts. The original data was preprocessed to eliminate questionable patient records and to normalize values of age-dependent clinical attributes. The model uses attributes routinely collected in the ED and provides predictions even for incomplete observations. Its performance was verified on independent validating data (split-sample validation) where it demonstrated AUC (area under ROC curve) of 0.83, sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 71% and the Brier score of 0.18. The model is intended to supplement an asthma clinical practice guideline, however, it can be also used as a stand-alone decision tool

Poor reproducibility of compression elastography in the Achilles tendon: same day and consecutive day measurements.

OBJECTIVE To determine the reproducibility of compression elastography (CE) when measuring strain data, a measure of stiffness of the human Achilles tendon in vivo, over consecutive measures, consecutive days and when using different foot positions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight participants (4 males, 4 females; mean age 25.5 ± 2.51 years, range 21-30 years; height 173.6 ± 11.7 cm, range 156-189 cm) had five consecutive CE measurements taken on one day and a further five CE measures taken, one per day, at the same time of day, every day for a consecutive 5-day period. These 80 measurements were used to assess both the repeatability and reproducibility of the technique. Means, standard deviations, coefficient of variation (CV), Pearson correlation analysis (R) and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. RESULTS For CE data, all CVs were above 53%, R values indicated no-to-weak correlations between measures at best (range 0.01-0.25), and ICC values were all classified in the poor category (range 0.00-0.11). CVs for length and diameter measures were acceptably low indicating a high level of reliability. CONCLUSIONS Given the wide variation obtained in the CE results, it was concluded that CE using this specific system has a low level of reproducibility for measuring the stiffness of the human Achilles tendon in vivo over consecutive days, consecutive measures and in different foot positions

Special Report on the Consensus QIBA Profile for Objective Analytical Validation of Non-calcified and High-risk Plaque and Other Biomarkers using Computed Tomography Angiography

Rationale and ObjectivesEvidence is building in support of the clinical utility of atherosclerotic plaque imaging by computed tomography angiography (CTA). There is increasing organized activity to embrace non-calcified plaque (NCP) as a formally defined biomarker for clinical trials, and high-risk plaque (HRP) for clinical care, as the most relevant measures for the field to advance and worthy of community efforts to validate. Yet the ability to assess the quantitative performance of any given specific solution to make these measurements or classifications is not available. Vendors use differing definitions, assessment metrics, and validation data sets to describe their offerings without clinician users having the capability to make objective assessments of accuracy and precision and how this affects diagnostic confidence.Materials and MethodsThe QIBA Profile for Atherosclerosis Biomarkers by CTA was created by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) to improve objectivity and decrease the variability of noninvasive plaque phenotyping. The Profile provides claims on the accuracy and precision of plaque measures individually and when combined.ResultsIndividual plaque morphology measurements are evaluated in terms of bias (accuracy), slope (consistency of the bias across the measurement range, needed for measurements of change), and variability. The multiparametric plaque stability phenotype is evaluated in terms of agreement with expert pathologists. The Profile is intended for a broad audience, including those engaged in discovery science, clinical trials, and patient care.ConclusionThis report provides a rationale and overview of the Profile claims and how to comply with the Profile in research and clinical practice.Summary StatementThis article summarizes objective means to validate the analytical performance of non-calcified plaque (NCP), other emerging plaque morphology measurements, and multiparametric histology-defined high-risk plaque (HRP), as outlined in the QIBA Profile for Atherosclerosis Biomarkers by CTA.<br/

Repeatability of MRI Biomarkers in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: The NIMBLE Consortium.

Background There is a need for reliable noninvasive methods for diagnosing and monitoring nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Thus, the multidisciplinary Non-invasive Biomarkers of Metabolic Liver disease (NIMBLE) consortium was formed to identify and advance the regulatory qualification of NAFLD imaging biomarkers. Purpose To determine the different-day same-scanner repeatability coefficient of liver MRI biomarkers in patients with NAFLD at risk for steatohepatitis. Materials and Methods NIMBLE 1.2 is a prospective, observational, single-center short-term cross-sectional study (October 2021 to June 2022) in adults with NAFLD across a spectrum of low, intermediate, and high likelihood of advanced fibrosis as determined according to the fibrosis based on four factors (FIB-4) index. Participants underwent up to seven MRI examinations across two visits less than or equal to 7 days apart. Standardized imaging protocols were implemented with six MRI scanners from three vendors at both 1.5 T and 3 T, with central analysis of the data performed by an independent reading center (University of California, San Diego). Trained analysts, who were blinded to clinical data, measured the MRI proton density fat fraction (PDFF), liver stiffness at MR elastography (MRE), and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) for each participant. Point estimates and CIs were calculated using χ2 distribution and statistical modeling for pooled repeatability measures. Results A total of 17 participants (mean age, 58 years ± 8.5 [SD]; 10 female) were included, of which seven (41.2%), six (35.3%), and four (23.5%) participants had a low, intermediate, or high likelihood of advanced fibrosis, respectively. The different-day same-scanner mean measurements were 13%-14% for PDFF, 6.6 L for VAT, and 3.15 kPa for two-dimensional MRE stiffness. The different-day same-scanner repeatability coefficients were 0.22 L (95% CI: 0.17, 0.29) for VAT, 0.75 kPa (95% CI: 0.6, 0.99) for MRE stiffness, 1.19% (95% CI: 0.96, 1.61) for MRI PDFF using magnitude reconstruction, 1.56% (95% CI: 1.26, 2.07) for MRI PDFF using complex reconstruction, and 19.7% (95% CI: 15.8, 26.2) for three-dimensional MRE shear modulus. Conclusion This preliminary study suggests that thresholds of 1.2%-1.6%, 0.22 L, and 0.75 kPa for MRI PDFF, VAT, and MRE, respectively, should be used to discern measurement error from real change in patients with NAFLD. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT05081427 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kozaka and Matsui in this issue

METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS): a quality scoring tool for radiomics research endorsed by EuSoMII

Purpose: To propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies. Methods: We conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated. Result: In total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community. Conclusion: In this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers. Critical relevance statement: A quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning. Key points: • A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol. • The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time. • METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines. • A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score (https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community (https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics). Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.

AI-Assisted vs Unassisted Identification of Prostate Cancer in Magnetic Resonance Images

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) assistance in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment for prostate cancer shows promise for improving diagnostic accuracy but lacks large-scale observational evidence. Objective: To evaluate whether use of AI-assisted assessment for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on MRI is superior to unassisted readings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study was conducted between March and July 2024 to compare unassisted and AI-assisted diagnostic performance using the AI system developed within the international Prostate Imaging-Cancer AI (PI-CAI) Consortium. The study involved 61 readers (34 experts and 27 nonexperts) from 53 centers across 17 countries. Readers assessed prostate magnetic resonance images both with and without AI assistance, providing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) annotations from 3 to 5 (higher PI-RADS indicated a higher likelihood of csPCa) and patient-level suspicion scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher scores indicated a greater likelihood of harboring csPCa). Biparametric prostate MRI examinations were included for 780 men from the PI-CAI study who were included in the newly-conducted observer study. All men within the PI-CAI study had suspicion of harboring prostate cancer, sufficient diagnostic image quality, and no prior clinically significant cancer findings. Disease presence was defined by histopathology, and absence was determined by 3 or more years of follow-up. The AI system was recalibrated using 420 Dutch examinations to generate lesion-detection maps, with AI scores ranging from 1 to 10, in which 10 indicates the highest likelihood of csPCa. The remaining 360 examinations, originating from 3 Dutch centers and 1 Norwegian center, were included in the observer study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was diagnosis of csPCa, evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and sensitivity and specificity at a PI-RADS threshold of 3 or more. The secondary outcomes included analysis at alternate operating points and reader expertise. Results: Among the 360 examinations of 360 men (median age, 65 years [IQR, 62-70 years]) who were included for testing, 122 (34%) harbored csPCa. AI assistance was associated with significantly improved performance, achieving a 3.3% increase in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI, 1.8%-4.9%; P <.001), from 0.882 (95% CI, 0.854-0.910) in unassisted assessments to 0.916 (95% CI, 0.893-0.938) with AI assistance. Sensitivity improved by 2.5% (95% CI, 1.1%-3.9%; P <.001), from 94.3% (95% CI, 91.9%-96.7%) to 96.8% (95% CI, 95.2%-98.5%), and specificity increased by 3.4% (95% CI, 0.8%-6.0%; P =.01), from 46.7% (95% CI, 39.4%-54.0%) to 50.1% (95% CI, 42.5%-57.7%), at a PI-RADS score of 3 or more. Secondary analyses demonstrated similar performance improvements across alternate operating points and a greater benefit of AI assistance for nonexpert readers. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this diagnostic study of patients suspected of harboring prostate cancer suggest that AI assistance was associated with improved radiologic diagnosis of clinically significant disease. Further research is required to investigate the generalization of outcomes and effects on workflow improvement within prospective settings

Evaluating Biparametric Versus Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: An International, Paired, Noninferiority, Confirmatory Observer Study

Background and objective: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI), excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is a potential replacement for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). An extensive international multireader multicase observer study was conducted to assess the noninferiority of bpMRI to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis. // Methods: An observer study was conducted with 400 mpMRI examinations from four European centers, excluding examinations with prior prostate treatment or csPCa (Gleason grade [GG] ≥2) findings. Readers assessed bpMRI and mpMRI sequentially, assigning lesion-specific Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (3–5) and a patient-level suspicion score (0–100). The noninferiority of patient-level bpMRI versus mpMRI csPCa diagnosis was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) alongside the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3 with a 5% margin. The secondary outcomes included insignificant prostate cancer (GG1) diagnosis, diagnostic evaluations at alternative risk thresholds, decision curve analyses (DCAs), and subgroup analyses considering reader expertise. Histopathology and ≥3 yr of follow-up were used for the reference standard. // Key findings and limitations: Sixty-two readers (45 centers and 20 countries) participated. The prevalence of csPCa was 33% (133/400); bpMRI and mpMRI showed similar AUROC values of 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.819–0.887) and 0.859 (95% CI, 0.826–0.893), respectively, with a noninferior difference of –0.6% (95% CI, –1.2% to 0.1%, p < 0.001). At PI-RADS ≥3, bpMRI and mpMRI had sensitivities of 88.6% (95% CI, 84.8–92.3%) and 89.4% (95% CI, 85.8–93.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of –0.9% (95% CI, –1.7% to 0.0%, p < 0.001), and specificities of 58.6% (95% CI, 52.3–63.1%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 52.3–63.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0–1.8%, p < 0.001). At alternative risk thresholds, mpMRI increased sensitivity at the expense of reduced specificity. DCA demonstrated the highest net benefit for an mpMRI pathway in cancer-averse scenarios, whereas a bpMRI pathway showed greater benefit for biopsy-averse scenarios. A subgroup analysis indicated limited additional benefit of DCE MRI for nonexperts. Limitations included that biopsies were conducted based on mpMRI imaging, and reading was performed in a sequential order. // Conclusions and clinical implications: It has been found that bpMRI is noninferior to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis at AUROC, along with the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3, showing its value in individuals without prior csPCa findings and prostate treatment. Additional randomized prospective studies are required to investigate the generalizability of outcomes