Abstract
Objectives Comparison of three different Artificial intelligence (AI) methods of assessment for patients undergoing Computed tomography (CT) for suspected Covid-19 disease. Parameters studied were probability of diagnosis, quantification of disease severity and the time to reach the diagnosis.
Methods 107 consecutive patients of suspected Covid-19 patients were evaluated using the three AI methods labeled as Al-I,II, III alongwith visual analysis labeled as VT for predicting probability of Covid-19, determining CT severity score (CTSS) and index (CTSI), percentage opacification (PO) and high opacification (POHO). Sensitivity, specificity along with area under curves were estimated for each method and the CTSS and CTSI correlated using Friedman test.
Results Out of 107 patients 71 patients were Covid-19 positive and 20 negative by RT-PCR while 16 did not get RT-PCR done. Al-III method showed higher sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 88% respectively to predict probability of Covid 19. It had 2 false positive patients of interstitial lung disease. Al-II method had sensitivity and specificity of 66% and 83% respectively while visual (VT) analysis showed sensitivity and specificity of 59.7% and 62% respectively. Statistically significant differences were also seen in CTSI and PO estimation between Al-I and III methods (p< 0.0001) with Al-III showing fastest time to calculate results.
Conclusions Al-III method gave better results to make an accurate and quick diagnosis of the Covid-19 with AUC of 0.85 to predict probability of Covid-19 alongwith quantification of Covid-19 lesions in the form of PO, POHO as compared to other AI methods and also by visual analysis.
KEY POINTS CT examinations of the chest can be more accurate and informative in detecting Covid-19 if combined with AI methods which are being designed to achieve this objective. In this study we compared three AI methods with Visual analysis and the results show.
Al-III method had a higher sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 88% compared to other methods in predicting probability of Covid-19.
Significant inter method variations were seen in quantifying Covid-19 opacities as CTSS,CTSI, PO and POHO variables (p< 0.0001). Al-III method showed no statistical difference with VT method for PO variable (p = 0.24) and was the only method which depicted all the variables..
Time to processing results was the shortest with Al-III method.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
http://www.advanceddiagnostics.in
Funding Statement
none
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
institutional ethic review board
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
ABBREVIATIONS
- PO
- percentage opacification
- POHO
- percentage opacification of high opacities.
- AI
- Artificial intelligence
- CTSS
- CT severity score
- CTSI
- CT severity score index.
- CT
- Computed tomography.
- VT
- visual truth.
