Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To perform a real-world clinical validation of a commercial AI tool for automatic MRI assessment in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, evaluating its impact on assessment time, workflow, and accuracy in detecting new and enlarging lesions.</p> Methods <p>We prospectively enrolled MS patients undergoing routine follow-up MRI from September-December 2024. Current and prior MRI examinations were anonymized and assessed independently by four neuroradiologists with and without AI assistance (mdbrain v.4.11.0). Assessment times were recorded, and radiologists completed utility questionnaires. Lesion quantification was compared between radiologist alone, radiologist with AI, and AI alone. Performance metrics including sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated case-level for detecting new and enlarging lesions.</p> Results <p>The cohort included 112 MS patients scanned on 8 different MRI scanner models with varying protocols. Mean assessment time was reduced by 27&#xa0;s when using AI versus without (<i>p</i> = 0.317). Radiologists found AI helpful in 87% of cases and reported difficulties in 11%. AI obtained negative predictive values of 0.89 for detecting new lesions when comparing to assessment without AI. Positive predictive values were low (0.35–0.65) due to false positive tendencies.</p> Conclusion <p>We prospectively validated an AI tool for MS MRI follow-up in a real-world setting. It showed modest, non-significant time savings and low positive predictive value, limiting research use. High negative predictive value supports triaging potential. Radiologists found the AI tool helpful for lesion counting and detecting small new lesions. Findings highlight the need for thorough clinical evaluation, especially in areas lacking definitive ground truth.</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

Prospective clinical evaluation of automatic lesion assessment in patients with multiple sclerosis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月12日

查看全文
  • Amalie Monberg Hindsholm,
  • Annika Reynberg Langkilde,
  • Jonathan Frederik Carlsen,
  • Dorthea Nørregaard,
  • Thomas Axelsen,
  • Aya Bakhtyar Baram,
  • Natalia Grundtvig,
  • Abdullah Shafique,
  • Jette Lautrup Frederiksen,
  • Flemming Littrup Andersen,
  • Henrik BW Larsson,
  • Adam Espe Hansen,
  • Martin Lundsgaard Hansen,
  • Claes Nøhr Ladefoged,
  • Ulrich Lindberg

摘要

Purpose

To perform a real-world clinical validation of a commercial AI tool for automatic MRI assessment in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, evaluating its impact on assessment time, workflow, and accuracy in detecting new and enlarging lesions.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled MS patients undergoing routine follow-up MRI from September-December 2024. Current and prior MRI examinations were anonymized and assessed independently by four neuroradiologists with and without AI assistance (mdbrain v.4.11.0). Assessment times were recorded, and radiologists completed utility questionnaires. Lesion quantification was compared between radiologist alone, radiologist with AI, and AI alone. Performance metrics including sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated case-level for detecting new and enlarging lesions.

Results

The cohort included 112 MS patients scanned on 8 different MRI scanner models with varying protocols. Mean assessment time was reduced by 27 s when using AI versus without (p = 0.317). Radiologists found AI helpful in 87% of cases and reported difficulties in 11%. AI obtained negative predictive values of 0.89 for detecting new lesions when comparing to assessment without AI. Positive predictive values were low (0.35–0.65) due to false positive tendencies.

Conclusion

We prospectively validated an AI tool for MS MRI follow-up in a real-world setting. It showed modest, non-significant time savings and low positive predictive value, limiting research use. High negative predictive value supports triaging potential. Radiologists found the AI tool helpful for lesion counting and detecting small new lesions. Findings highlight the need for thorough clinical evaluation, especially in areas lacking definitive ground truth.