In medical practice, chest X-rays are the most ubiquitous diagnostic imaging tests. However, the current workload in extensive health care facilities and lack of well-trained radiologists is a significant challenge in the patient care pathway. Therefore, an accurate, reliable, and fast computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system capable of detecting abnormalities in chest X-rays is crucial in improving the radiological workflow. In this prospective multicenter quality-improvement study, we have evaluated whether artificial intelligence (AI) can be used as a chest X-ray screening tool in real clinical settings. Methods: A team of radiologists used the AI-based chest X-ray screening tool (qXR) as a part of their daily reporting routine to report consecutive chest X-rays for this prospective multicentre study. This study took place in a large radiology network in India between June 2021 and March 2022. Results: A total of 65,604 chest X-rays were processed during the study period. The overall performance of AI achieved in detecting normal and abnormal chest X-rays was good. The high negatively predicted value (NPV) of 98.9% was achieved. The AI performance in terms of area under the curve (AUC), NPV for the corresponding subabnormalities obtained were blunted CP angle (0.97, 99.5%), hilar dysmorphism (0.86, 99.9%), cardiomegaly (0.96, 99.7%), reticulonodular pattern (0.91, 99.9%), rib fracture (0.98, 99.9%), scoliosis (0.98, 99.9%), atelectasis (0.96, 99.9%), calcification (0.96, 99.7%), consolidation (0.95, 99.6%), emphysema (0.96, 99.9%), fibrosis (0.95, 99.7%), nodule (0.91, 99.8%), opacity (0.92, 99.2%), pleural effusion (0.97, 99.7%), and pneumothorax (0.99, 99.9%). Additionally, the turnaround time (TAT) decreased by about 40.63% from pre-qXR period to post-qXR period. Conclusions: The AI-based chest X-ray solution (qXR) screened chest X-rays and assisted in ruling out normal patients with high confidence, thus allowing the radiologists to focus more on assessing pathology on abnormal chest X-rays and treatment pathways.

Purpose: We assessed whether a CXR AI algorithm was able to detect missed or mislabeled chest radiograph (CXR) findings in radiology reports. Methods: We queried a multi-institutional radiology reports search database of 13 million reports to identify all CXR reports with addendums from 1999–2021. Of the 3469 CXR reports with an addendum, a thoracic radiologist excluded reports where addenda were created for typographic errors, wrong report template, missing sections, or uninterpreted signoffs. The remaining reports contained addenda (279 patients) with errors related to side-discrepancies or missed findings such as pulmonary nodules, consolidation, pleural effusions, pneumothorax, and rib fractures. All CXRs were processed with an AI algorithm. Descriptive statistics were performed to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the AI in detecting missed or mislabeled findings. Results: The AI had high sensitivity (96%), specificity (100%), and accuracy (96%) for detecting all missed and mislabeled CXR findings. The corresponding finding-specific statistics for the AI were nodules (96%, 100%, 96%), pneumothorax (84%, 100%, 85%), pleural effusion (100%, 17%, 67%), consolidation (98%, 100%, 98%), and rib fractures (87%, 100%, 94%). Conclusions: The CXR AI could accurately detect mislabeled and missed findings. Clinical Relevance: The CXR AI can reduce the frequency of errors in detection and side-labeling of radiographic findings.

Background: The chest radiograph (CXR) is the most frequently performed radiological examination worldwide. The increasing volume of CXRs performed in hospitals causes reporting backlogs and increased waiting times for patients, potentially compromising timely clinical intervention and patient safety. Implementing computer-aided detection (CAD) artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms capable of accurate and rapid CXR reporting could help address such limitations. A novel use for AI reporting is the classification of CXRs as ‘abnormal’ or ‘normal’. This classification could help optimize resource allocation and aid radiologists in managing their time efficiently. Methods: qXR is a CE-marked computer-aided detection (CAD) software trained on over 4.4 million CXRs. In this retrospective cross-sectional pre-deployment study, we evaluated the performance of qXR in stratifying normal and abnormal CXRs. We analyzed 1040 CXRs from various referral sources, including general practices (GP), Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments, and inpatient (IP) and outpatient (OP) settings at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust. The ground truth for the CXRs was established by assessing the agreement between two senior radiologists. Results: The CAD software had a sensitivity of 99.7% and a specificity of 67.4%. The sub-group analysis showed no statistically significant difference in performance across healthcare settings, age, gender, and X-ray manufacturer. Conclusions: The study showed that qXR can accurately stratify CXRs as normal versus abnormal, potentially reducing reporting backlogs and resulting in early patient intervention, which may result in better patient outcomes.

Background: Missed findings in chest X-ray interpretation are common and can have serious consequences. Methods: Our study included 2407 chest radiographs (CXRs) acquired at three Indian and five US sites. To identify CXRs reported as normal, we used a proprietary radiology report search engine based on natural language processing (mPower, Nuance). Two thoracic radiologists reviewed all CXRs and recorded the presence and clinical significance of abnormal findings on a 5-point scale (1—not important; 5—critical importance). All CXRs were processed with the AI model (Qure.ai) and outputs were recorded for the presence of findings. Data were analyzed to obtain area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: Of 410 CXRs (410/2407, 18.9%) with unreported/missed findings, 312 (312/410, 76.1%) findings were clinically important: pulmonary nodules (n = 157), consolidation (60), linear opacities (37), mediastinal widening (21), hilar enlargement (17), pleural effusions (11), rib fractures (6) and pneumothoraces (3). AI detected 69 missed findings (69/131, 53%) with an AUC of up to 0.935. The AI model was generalizable across different sites, geographic locations, patient genders and age groups. Conclusion: A substantial number of important CXR findings are missed; the AI model can help to identify and reduce the frequency of important missed findings in a generalizable manner.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) based computer-aided detection devices are recommended for screening and triaging of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) using digital chest x-ray (CXR) images (soft copies). Most AI algorithms are trained using input data from digital CXR Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files. There can be scenarios when only digital CXR films (hard copies) are available for interpretation. A smartphone-captured photo of the digital CXR film may be used for AI to process in such a scenario. There is a gap in the literature investigating if there is a significant difference in the performance of AI algorithms when digital CXR DICOM files are used as input for AI to process as opposed to photos of the digital CXR films being used as input. Objective: The primary objective was to compare the agreement of AI in detecting radiological signs of TB when using DICOM files (denoted as CXRd) as input versus when using smartphone-captured photos of digital CXR films (denoted as CXRp) with human readers. Methods: Pairs of CXRd and CXRp images were obtained retrospectively from patients screened for TB. AI results were obtained using both the CXRd and CXRp files. The majority consensus on the presence or absence of TB in CXR pairs was obtained from a panel of 3 independent radiologists. The positive and negative percent agreement of AI in detecting radiological signs of TB in CXRd and CXRp were estimated by comparing with the majority consensus. The distribution of AI probability scores was also compared. Results: A total of 1278 CXR pairs were analyzed. The positive percent agreement of AI was found to be 92.22% (95% CI 89.94-94.12) and 90.75% (95% CI 88.32-92.82), respectively, for CXRd and CXRp images (P=.09). The negative percent agreement of AI was 82.08% (95% CI 78.76-85.07) and 79.23% (95% CI 75.75-82.42), respectively, for CXRd and CXRp images (P=.06). The median of the AI probability score was 0.72 (IQR 0.11-0.97) in CXRd and 0.72 (IQR 0.14-0.96) in CXRp images (P=.75). Conclusions: We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the output of AI in digital CXRs and photos of digital CXR films.

Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) enabled devices may be able to optimize radiologists’ productivity by identifying normal and abnormal chest X-rays (CXRs) for triaging. In this service evaluation, we investigated the accuracy of one such AI device (qXR). Methods: A randomly sampled subset of general practice and outpatient-referred frontal CXRs from a National Health Service Trust was collected retrospectively from examinations conducted during November 2022 to January 2023. Ground truth was established by consensus between 2 radiologists. The main objective was to estimate negative predictive value (NPV) of AI. Results: A total of 522 CXRs (458 [87.74%] normal CXRs) from 522 patients (median age, 64 years [IQR, 49-77]; 305 [58.43%] female) were analysed. AI predicted 348 CXRs as normal, of which 346 were truly normal (NPV: 99.43% [95% CI, 97.94-99.93]). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and area under the ROC curve of AI were found to be 96.88% (95% CI, 89.16-99.62), 75.55% (95% CI, 71.34-79.42), 35.63% (95% CI, 28.53-43.23), and 91.92% (95% CI, 89.38-94.45), respectively. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate NPV by varying assumptions of the prevalence of normal CXRs. The NPV ranged from 88.96% to 99.54% as prevalence increased. Conclusions: The AI device recognized normal CXRs with high NPV and has the potential to increase radiologists’ productivity. Advances in knowledge: There is a need for more evidence on the utility of AI-enabled devices in identifying normal CXRs. This work adds to such limited evidence and enables researchers to plan studies to further evaluate the impact of such devices.