Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Example of examination visualization in a patient without an intracranial aneurysm. The CAD outputs are depicted as blue dots on different MRA projections (shown here as gray dots).
- Fig 2.
Rendering showing the algorithm implemented in a 3D viewing system with the suspicious point centered in the rendering view by using a clickable list.
- Fig 3.
The smallest aneurysm (1.1 mm).
- Fig 4.
This aneurysm was missed by the CAD algorithm. We believe that the error was because the aneurysm had a relatively consistent diameter up to the dome, thus not meeting the curvature criteria. This was detected by all radiologists with and without CAD.
- Fig 5.
A free-response receiver operating characteristic curves aneurysm fraction.
Tables
No. Size (mm) Location 1 3.6 Left middle cerebral artery (M1) 2 2.5 Right posterior communicating artery 3 4.2 Right internal carotid artery terminus 4 2.1 Right distal anterior cerebral artery (A1) 5 2.1 Right supraclinoid internal carotid 6 2.2 Left pericallosal artery aneurysm (A2) 7 1.1 Left middle cerebral artery (M1) 8 6.0 Right proximal cavernous internal carotid artery 9 4.0 Left superior cerebellar artery 10 4.0 Left internal carotid artery proximal to ophthalmic 11 2.5 Left middle cerebral artery (M1) ↵a The sizes shown are the greatest dimension based on the DSA images.
Estimated FOM CAD− CAD+ Difference 95% CI P Value Reader 1 0.667 0.726 0.060 (−0.184–0.304) .62 Reader 2 0.660 0.842 0.182 (0.021–0.344) .028 Reader 3 0.789 0.892 0.103 (−0.071–0.276) .24 Reader 4b 0.594 0.746 0.152 (−0.042–0.347) .12 Reader 5 0.514 0.717 0.203 (−0.158–0.564) .26 Reader 6 0.707 0.630 -0.077 (−0.371–0.217) .60 Overall 0.655 0.759 0.104 (0.025–0.183) .011 Sensitivity (95% CI) Specificity (95% CI) Accuracy (95% CI) Reader 1 CAD− 55.6% (5/9) (26.7%–81.1%) 76.9% (30/39) (61.7%–87.4%) 72.9% (35/48) (59.0%–83.4%) CAD+ 77.8% (7/9) (45.3%–93.7%) 66.7% (26/39) (51.0%–79.4%) 68.8% (33/48) (54.7%–80.1%) Reader 2 CAD− 66.7% (6/9) (35.4%–87.9%) 74.4% (29/39) (58.9%–85.4%) 72.9% (35/48) (59.0%–83.4%) CAD+ 88.9% (8/9) (56.5%–98.0%) 79.5% (31/39) (64.5%–89.2%) 81.3% (39/48) (68.1%–89.8%) Reader 3 CAD− 77.8% (7/9) (45.3%–93.7%) 84.6% (33/39) (70.3%–92.8%) 83.3% (40/48) (70.4%–91.3%) CAD+ 100% (9/9) (70.1%–100.0%) 79.5% (31/39) (64.5%–89.2%) 83.3% (40/48) (70.4%–91.3%) Reader 4a CAD− 66.7% (6/9) (35.4%–87.9%) 82.1% (32/39) (67.3%–91.0%) 79.2% (38/48) (65.7%–88.3%) CAD+ 77.8% (7/9) (45.3%–93.7%) 76.9% (30/39) (61.7%–87.4%) 77.1% (37/48) (63.5%–86.7%) Reader 5 CAD− 88.9% (8/9) (56.5%–98.0%) 79.5% (31/39) (64.5%–89.2%) 81.3% (39/48) (68.1%–89.8%) CAD+ 77.8% (7/9) (45.3%–93.7%) 74.4% (29/39) (58.9%–85.4%) 75% (36/48) (61.2%–85.1%) Reader 6 CAD− 66.7% (6/9) (35.4%–87.9%) 79.5% (31/39) (64.5%–89.2%) 77.1% (37/48) (63.5%–86.7%) CAD+ 77.8% (7/9) (45.3%–93.7%) 76.9% (30/39) (61.7%–87.4%) 77.1% (37/48) (63.5%–86.7%) ↵a General radiologist, all other readers are neuroradiologists.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Automated Detection of Cerebral Aneurysms on TOF-MRA Using a Deep Learning Approach: An External Validation Study
- Detection of clustered anomalies in single-voxel morphometry as a rapid automated method for identifying intracranial aneurysms
- Deep Learning-Based Detection of Intracranial Aneurysms in 3D TOF-MRA
- Computer-Assisted Detection of Cerebral Aneurysms in MR Angiography in a Routine Image-Reading Environment: Effects on Diagnosis by Radiologists