In recent years, deep learning (DL) has shown impressive performance in radiologic image analysis. However, for a DL model to be useful in a real-world setting, its confidence in a prediction must also be known. Each DL model's output has an estimated probability, and these estimated probabilities are not always reliable. Uncertainty represents the trustworthiness (validity) of estimated probabilities. The higher the uncertainty, the lower the validity. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods determine the uncertainty level of each prediction. Predictions made without UQ methods are generally not trustworthy. By implementing UQ in medical DL models, users can be alerted when a model does not have enough information to make a confident decision. Consequently, a medical expert could reevaluate the uncertain cases, which would eventually lead to gaining more trust when using a model. This review focuses on recent trends using UQ methods in DL radiologic image analysis within a conceptual framework. Also discussed in this review are potential applications, challenges, and future directions of UQ in DL radiologic image analysis.

“Just Accepted” papers have undergone full peer review and have been accepted for publication in Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. This article will undergo copyediting, layout, and proof review ...

This report reviews potential biases during machine learning model development and proposes possible mitigation strategies for radiology artificial intelligence studies. There are increasing concerns about the bias and fairness of artificial intelligence (AI) models as they are put into clinical practice. Among the steps for implementing machine learning tools into...

Background: Establishing imaging registries for large patient cohorts is challenging because manual labeling is tedious and relying solely on DICOM (digital imaging and communications in medicine) metadata can result in errors. We endeavored to establish an automated hip and pelvic radiography registry of total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients by utilizing deep-learning pipelines. The aims of the study were (1) to utilize these automated pipelines to identify all pelvic and hip radiographs with appropriate annotation of laterality and presence or absence of implants, and (2) to automatically measure acetabular component inclination and version for THA images. Methods: We retrospectively retrieved 846,988 hip and pelvic radiography DICOM files from 20,378 patients who underwent primary or revision THA performed at our institution from 2000 to 2020. Metadata for the files were screened followed by extraction of imaging data. Two deep-learning algorithms (an EfficientNetB3 classifier and a YOLOv5 object detector) were developed to automatically determine the radiographic appearance of all files. Additional deep-learning algorithms were utilized to automatically measure the acetabular angles on anteroposterior pelvic and lateral hip radiographs. Algorithm performance was compared with that of human annotators on a random test sample of 5,000 radiographs. Results: Deep-learning algorithms enabled appropriate exclusion of 209,332 DICOM files (24.7%) as misclassified non-hip/pelvic radiographs or having corrupted pixel data. The final registry was automatically curated and annotated in <8 hours and included 168,551 anteroposterior pelvic, 176,890 anteroposterior hip, 174,637 lateral hip, and 117,578 oblique hip radiographs. The algorithms achieved 99.9% accuracy, 99.6% precision, 99.5% recall, and a 99.6% F1 score in determining the radiograph appearance. Conclusions: We developed a highly accurate series of deep-learning algorithms to rapidly curate and annotate THA patient radiographs. This efficient pipeline can be utilized by other institutions or registries to construct radiography databases for patient care, longitudinal surveillance, and large-scale research. The stepwise approach for establishing a radiography registry can further be utilized as a workflow guide for other anatomic areas. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) represents a panel of conditions that begin during the developmental period and result in impairments of personal, social, academic, or occupational functioning. Early diagnosis is directly related to a better prognosis. Unfortunately, the diagnosis of ASD requires a long and exhausting subjective process. We aimed to review the state of the art for automated autism diagnosis and recognition in this research. In February 2022, we searched multiple databases and sources of gray literature for eligible studies. We used an adapted version of the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. A brief report of the methods and results of each study is presented. Data were synthesized for each modality separately using the Split Component Synthesis (SCS) method. We assessed heterogeneity using the I ² statistics and evaluated publication bias using trim and fill tests combined with ln DOR. Confidence in cumulative evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach for diagnostic studies. We included 344 studies from 186,020 participants (51,129 are estimated to be unique) for nine different modalities in this review, from which 232 reported sufficient data for meta-analysis. The area under the curve was in the range of 0.71–0.90 for all the modalities. The studies on EEG data provided the best accuracy, with the area under the curve ranging between 0.85 and 0.93. We found that the literature is rife with bias and methodological/reporting flaws. Recommendations are provided for future research to provide better studies and fill in the current knowledge gaps.