Abstract
Background Scanner-related changes in data quality are common in medical imaging, yet monitoring their impact on diagnostic AI performance remains challenging.
Purpose To assess the consistency of an FDA-approved AI solution for intracranial aneurysm detection across changes in image data quality caused by dose and image reconstruction.
Methods Consistency testing was performed using a head CT phantom designed for AI evaluation, replicating a patient with three intracranial aneurysms in the anterior communicating artery (ACoA), middle cerebral artery (MCA), and basilar artery (BA). The phantom was examined three times at 21 doses ranging from 0.47 to 20.09 mGy using iterative reconstruction (IR) and filtered back projection (FBP). Aneurysm labeling by an AI solution approved for triage and notification of intracranial aneurysms was analyzed. Five neuroradiologists evaluated all examinations for aneurysm visibility.
Results The AI solution labeled 74.6% of ACoA, 92.9% of MCA, and 2.4% of BA aneurysms, while reader experiments yielded aneurysm visibility rates of 98.6%, 99.8%, and 95.4%, respectively. The AI demonstrated stable performance within the medium dose range but produced inconsistent results at doses below 8 mGy with IR, 7 mGy with FBP, and also above 14 mGy with FBP. Doses below 1 mGy with IR and 2 mGy with FBP led to a complete lack of AI response to any aneurysm. Readers noted at least one visible aneurysm in every case and reported 100% visibility for all aneurysms at doses above 2 mGy.
Conclusions Diagnostic AI shows inconsistent performance when image data quality is not optimal and requires more stringent quality standards than radiologists. Standardized consistency testing reveals AI performance issues when these quality requirements are not achieved.
Competing Interest Statement
Bernd Hamm is shareholder, Michael Scheel is patent inventor and shareholder, and Paul Jahnke is patent inventor, shareholder, and part-time employee of PhantomX GmbH.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
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:
Ethics committee of the Charite gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
