23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Deep neural network improves fracture detection by clinicians

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Historically, computer-assisted detection (CAD) in radiology has failed to achieve improvements in diagnostic accuracy, decreasing clinician sensitivity and leading to unnecessary further diagnostic tests. With the advent of deep learning approaches to CAD, there is great excitement about its application to medicine, yet there is little evidence demonstrating improved diagnostic accuracy in clinically-relevant applications. We trained a deep learning model to detect fractures on radiographs with a diagnostic accuracy similar to that of senior subspecialized orthopedic surgeons. We demonstrate that when emergency medicine clinicians are provided with the assistance of the trained model, their ability to accurately detect fractures significantly improves.

          Abstract

          Suspected fractures are among the most common reasons for patients to visit emergency departments (EDs), and X-ray imaging is the primary diagnostic tool used by clinicians to assess patients for fractures. Missing a fracture in a radiograph often has severe consequences for patients, resulting in delayed treatment and poor recovery of function. Nevertheless, radiographs in emergency settings are often read out of necessity by emergency medicine clinicians who lack subspecialized expertise in orthopedics, and misdiagnosed fractures account for upward of four of every five reported diagnostic errors in certain EDs. In this work, we developed a deep neural network to detect and localize fractures in radiographs. We trained it to accurately emulate the expertise of 18 senior subspecialized orthopedic surgeons by having them annotate 135,409 radiographs. We then ran a controlled experiment with emergency medicine clinicians to evaluate their ability to detect fractures in wrist radiographs with and without the assistance of the deep learning model. The average clinician’s sensitivity was 80.8% (95% CI, 76.7–84.1%) unaided and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.3–92.9%) aided, and specificity was 87.5% (95 CI, 85.3–89.5%) unaided and 93.9% (95% CI, 92.9–94.9%) aided. The average clinician experienced a relative reduction in misinterpretation rate of 47.0% (95% CI, 37.4–53.9%). The significant improvements in diagnostic accuracy that we observed in this study show that deep learning methods are a mechanism by which senior medical specialists can deliver their expertise to generalists on the front lines of medicine, thereby providing substantial improvements to patient care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

          After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: a study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers.

            Diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED) are an important patient safety concern, but little is known about their cause. We identify types and causes of missed or delayed diagnoses in the ED. This is a review of 122 closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers in which patients had alleged a missed or delayed diagnosis in the ED. Trained physician reviewers examined the litigation files and the associated medical records to determine whether an adverse outcome because of a missed diagnosis had occurred, what breakdowns were involved in the missed diagnosis, and what factors contributed to it. Main outcome measures were missed diagnoses, process breakdowns, and contributing factors. A total of 79 claims (65%) involved missed ED diagnoses that harmed patients. Forty-eight percent of these missed diagnoses were associated with serious harm, and 39% resulted in death. The leading breakdowns in the diagnostic process were failure to order an appropriate diagnostic test (58% of errors), failure to perform an adequate medical history or physical examination (42%), incorrect interpretation of a diagnostic test (37%), and failure to order an appropriate consultation (33%). The leading contributing factors to the missed diagnoses were cognitive factors (96%), patient-related factors (34%), lack of appropriate supervision (30%), inadequate handoffs (24%), and excessive workload (23%). The median numbers of process breakdowns and contributing factors per missed diagnosis were 2 and 3, respectively. Missed diagnoses in the ED have a complex cause. They are typically the result of multiple breakdowns in the diagnostic process and several contributing factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnostic errors in an accident and emergency department.

              H Guly (2001)
              To describe the diagnostic errors occurring in a busy district general hospital accident and emergency (A&E) department over four years. All diagnostic errors discovered by or notified to one A&E consultant were noted on a computerised database. 953 diagnostic errors were noted in 934 patients. Altogether 79.7% were missed fractures. The most common reasons for error were misreading radiographs (77.8%) and failure to perform radiography (13.4%). The majority of errors were made by SHOs. Twenty two diagnostic errors resulted in complaints and legal actions and three patients who had a diagnostic error made, later died. Good clinical skills are essential. Most abnormalities missed on radiograph were not difficult to diagnose. Junior doctors in A&E should receive specific training and be tested on their ability to interpret radiographs correctly before being allowed to work unsupervised.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                6 November 2018
                22 October 2018
                22 October 2018
                : 115
                : 45
                : 11591-11596
                Affiliations
                [1] aImagen Technologies , New York, NY 10012;
                [2] bDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado , Boulder, CO 80309;
                [3] cDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery , New York, NY 10021;
                [4] dFaculty of Medicine, McGill University , Montreal, QC, Canada, H3A 2R7;
                [5] eDepartment of Radiology, Mount Sinai Health System , New York, NY 10029;
                [6] fDepartment of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Harborview Medical Center , University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104;
                [7] gDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford, CA 94305;
                [8] hDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Northwell Health , New Hyde Park, NY 11040;
                [9] iDepartment of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery , New York, NY 10021
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: rob@ 123456imagen.ai .

                Edited by Terrence J. Sejnowski, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA, and approved September 14, 2018 (received for review April 25, 2018)

                Author contributions: R.L., A.D., A.L., M.M., and H.P. designed research; R.L., A.L., S.S., D.H., M.G., A.G., and R.H. performed research; R.L. and M.M. analyzed data; and R.L., A.D., S.C., M.M., and H.P. wrote the paper.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8561-8990
                Article
                201806905
                10.1073/pnas.1806905115
                6233134
                30348771
                5fefb2d4-9be0-4060-900e-e33d185469a9
                Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                Biological Sciences
                Medical Sciences
                Physical Sciences
                Computer Sciences

                deep learning,radiology,cad,fractures,x-ray
                deep learning, radiology, cad, fractures, x-ray

                Comments

                Comment on this article