(1) This study evaluates the impact of an AI denoising algorithm on image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and radiological workflows in pediatric chest ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT). (2) Methods: 100 consecutive pediatric thorax ULDCT were included and reconstructed using weighted filtered back projection (wFBP), iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE 2), and AI denoising (PixelShine). Place-consistent noise measurements were used to compare objective image quality. Eight blinded readers independently rated the subjective image quality on a Likert scale (1 = worst to 5 = best). Each reader wrote a semiquantitative report to evaluate disease severity using a severity score with six common pathologies. The time to diagnosis was measured for each reader to compare the possible workflow benefits. Properly corrected mixed-effects analysis with post-hoc subgroup tests were used. Spearman’s correlation coefficient measured inter-reader agreement for the subjective image quality analysis and the severity score sheets. (3) Results: The highest noise was measured for wFBP, followed by ADMIRE 2, and PixelShine (76.9 ± 9.62 vs. 43.4 ± 4.45 vs. 34.8 ± 3.27 HU; each p < 0.001). The highest subjective image quality was measured for PixelShine, followed by ADMIRE 2, and wFBP (4 (4–5) vs. 3 (4–5) vs. 3 (2–4), each p < 0.001) with good inter-rater agreement (r ≥ 0.790; p ≤ 0.001). In diagnostic accuracy analysis, there was a good inter-rater agreement between the severity scores (r ≥ 0.764; p < 0.001) without significant differences between severity score items per reconstruction mode (F (5.71; 566) = 0.792; p = 0.570). The shortest time to diagnosis was measured for the PixelShine datasets, followed by ADMIRE 2, and wFBP (2.28 ± 1.56 vs. 2.45 ± 1.90 vs. 2.66 ± 2.31 min; F (1.000; 99.00) = 268.1; p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: AI denoising significantly improves image quality in pediatric thorax ULDCT without compromising the diagnostic confidence and reduces the time to diagnosis substantially.

(1) To explore the potential impact of an AI dual-energy CT (DECT) prototype on decision making and workflows by investigating its capabilities to differentiate COVID-19 from immunotherapy-related pneumonitis. (2) Methods: From 3 April 2020 to 12 February 2021, DECT from biometrically matching patients with COVID-19, pneumonitis, and inconspicuous findings were selected from our clinical routine. Three blinded readers independently scored each pulmonary lobe analogous to CO-RADS. Inter-rater agreement was determined with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Averaged perfusion metrics per lobe (iodine uptake in mg, volume without vessels in ml, iodine concentration in mg/mL) were extracted using manual segmentation and an AI DECT prototype. A generalized linear mixed model was used to investigate metric validity and potential distinctions at equal CO-RADS scores. Multinomial regression measured the contribution “Reader”, “CO-RADS score”, and “perfusion metrics” to diagnosis. The time to diagnosis was measured for manual vs. AI segmentation. (3) Results: We included 105 patients (62 ± 13 years, mean BMI 27 ± 2). There were no significant differences between manually and AI-extracted perfusion metrics (p = 0.999). Regardless of the CO-RADS score, iodine uptake and concentration per lobe were significantly higher in COVID-19 than in pneumonitis (p < 0.001). In regression, iodine uptake had a greater contribution to diagnosis than CO-RADS scoring (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.82 [95%CI 1.10–2.99] vs. OR = 0.20 [95%CI 0.14–0.29]). The AI prototype extracted the relevant perfusion metrics significantly faster than radiologists (10 ± 1 vs. 15 ± 2 min, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: The investigated AI prototype positively impacts decision making and workflows by extracting perfusion metrics that differentiate COVID-19 from visually similar pneumonitis significantly faster than radiologists.