Use of 3-T multiparametric MR imaging, consisting of T2-weighted imaging, low-b- value (<1000 sec/mm2) diffusion-weighted apparent diffusion coefficient mapping, and dynamic contrast material–enhanced MR imaging, may not improve transition zone cancer detection and localization accuracy compared with those attained with 3-T T2-weighted imaging alone. PurposeTo retrospectively compare transition zone (TZ) cancer detection and localization accuracy of 3-T T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of multiparametric (MP) MR imaging, with radical prostatectomy specimens as the reference standard.Materials and MethodsThe informed consent requirement was waived by the institutional review board. Inclusion criteria were radical prostatectomy specimen TZ cancer larger than 0.5 cm3 and 3-T endorectal presurgery MP MR imaging (T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted [DW] imaging apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] maps [b < 1000 sec/mm2], and dynamic contrast material–enhanced [DCE] MR imaging). From 197 patients with radical prostatectomy specimens, 28 patients with TZ cancer were included. Thirty-five patients without TZ cancer were randomly selected as a control group. Four radiologists randomly scored T2-weighted and DW ADC images, T2-weighted and DCE MR images, and T2-weighted, DW ADC, and DCE MR images. TZ cancer suspicion was rated on a five...

Objectives: The patients’ view on the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology is still mainly unexplored territory. The aim of this article is to develop and validate a standardized patient questionnaire on the implementation of AI in radiology.Methods: Six domains derived from a previous qualitative study were used to develop a questionnaire, and cognitive interviews were used as pretest method. One hundred fifty-five patients scheduled for CT, MRI, and/or conventional radiography filled out the questionnaire. To find underlying latent variables, we used exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and oblique promax rotation. Internal consistency of the factors was measured with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability.Results: The exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors on AI in radiology: (1) distrust and accountability (overall, patients were moderately negative on this subject), (2) procedural knowledge (patients generally indicated the need for their active engagement), (3) personal interaction (overall, patients preferred personal interaction), (4) efficiency (overall, patients were ambiguous on this subject), and (5) being informed (overall, scores on these items were not outspoken within this factor). Internal consistency was good for three factors (1, 2, and 3), and acceptable for two (4 and 5).Conclusions: This study yielded a viable questionnaire to measure acceptance among patients of the implementation of AI in radiology. Additional data collection with confirmatory factor analysis may provide further refinement of the scale.Key Points: • Although AI systems are increasingly developed, not much is known about patients’ views on AI in radiology.• Since it is important that newly developed questionnaires are adequately tested and validated, we did so for a questionnaire measuring patients’ views on AI in radiology, revealing five factors.• Successful implementation of AI in radiology requires assessment of social factors such as subjective norms towards the technology.

To investigate the general population's view on artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine with specific emphasis on 3 areas that have experienced major progress in AI research in the past few years, namely radiology, robotic surgery, and dermatology. For this prospective study, the April 2020 Online Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences Panel Wave was used. Of the 3117 Longitudinal Internet Studies For The Social Sciences panel members contacted, 2411 completed the full questionnaire (77.4% response rate), after combining data from earlier waves, the final sample size was 1909. A total of 3 scales focusing on trust in the implementation of AI in radiology, robotic surgery, and dermatology were used. Repeated-measures analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of variance was used for comparison. The overall means show that respondents have slightly more trust in AI in dermatology than in radiology and surgery. The means show that higher educated males, employed or student, of Western background, and those not admitted to a hospital in the past 12 months have more trust in AI. The trust in AI in radiology, robotic surgery, and dermatology is positively associated with belief in the efficiency of AI and these specific domains were negatively associated with distrust and accountability in AI in general. The general population is more distrustful of AI in medicine unlike the overall optimistic views posed in the media. The level of trust is dependent on what medical area is subject to scrutiny. Certain demographic characteristics and individuals with a generally positive view on AI and its efficiency are significantly associated with higher levels of trust in AI.

Chest CT may be used for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but clear scientific evidence is lacking. Therefore, we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the chest CT imaging signature of COVID-19. What is the chest CT imaging signature of COVID-19 infection? A systematic literature search was performed for original studies on chest CT imaging findings in patients with COVID-19. Methodologic quality of studies was evaluated. Pooled prevalence of chest CT imaging findings were calculated with the use of a random effects model in case of between-study heterogeneity (predefined as I² ≥50); otherwise, a fixed effects model was used. Twenty-eight studies were included. The median number of patients with COVID-19 per study was 124 (range, 50-476), comprising a total of 3,466 patients. Median prevalence of symptomatic patients was 99% (range, >76.3%-100%). Twenty-seven of the studies (96%) had a retrospective design. Methodologic quality concerns were present with either risk of or actual referral bias (13 studies), patient spectrum bias (eight studies), disease progression bias (26 studies), observer variability bias (27 studies), and test review bias (14 studies). Pooled prevalence was 10.6% for normal chest CT imaging findings. Pooled prevalences were 90.0% for posterior predilection, 81.0% for ground-glass opacity, 75.8% for bilateral abnormalities, 73.1% for left lower lobe involvement, 72.9% for vascular thickening, and 72.2% for right lower lobe involvement. Pooled prevalences were 5.2% for pleural effusion, 5.1% for lymphadenopathy, 4.1% for airway secretions/tree-in-bud sign, 3.6% for central lesion distribution, 2.7% for pericardial effusion, and 0.7% for cavitation/cystic changes. Pooled prevalences of other CT imaging findings ranged between 10.5% and 63.2%. Studies on chest CT imaging findings in COVID-19 suffer from methodologic quality concerns. More high-quality research is necessary to establish diagnostic CT criteria for COVID-19. Based on the available evidence that requires cautious interpretation, several chest CT imaging findings appear to be suggestive of COVID-19, but normal chest CT imaging findings do not exclude COVID-19, not even in symptomatic patients.

To investigate the general population's view on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnostic interpretation of screening mammograms. Dutch women aged 16 to 75 years were surveyed using the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social sciences panel, representative for the Dutch population. Attitude toward AI in mammography screening was measured by means of five items: necessity of a human check; AI as a selector for second reading; AI as a second reader; developer is responsible for error; and radiologist is responsible for error. Of the 922 participants included, 77.8% agreed with the necessity of a human check, whereas the item AI as a selector for a second reading was more heterogeneously answered, with 41.7% disagreement, 31.5% agreement, and 26.9% responding with "neither agree nor disagree." The item AI as a second reader was mostly responded with "neither agree nor disagree" (37.1%) and "agree" (37.6%), whereas the two last items on developer's and radiologist' responsibilities were mostly answered with "neither agree nor disagree" (44.6% and 39.2%, respectively). Despite recent breakthroughs in the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms for the interpretation of screening mammograms, the general population currently does not support a fully independent use of such systems without involving a radiologist. The combination of a radiologist as a first reader and an AI system as a second reader in a breast cancer screening program finds most support at present. Accountability in case of AI-related diagnostic errors in screening mammography is still an unresolved conundrum.