Comparative analysis reveals selective AI approaches improve diagnostic performance in viral pneumonia evaluations.
Purpose To evaluate how different artificial intelligence (AI)-powered approaches affect human performance in a demanding chest computed tomography (CT) task, such as distinguishing between viral pneumonias. Material and methods Three radiologists blindly evaluated 220 chest CT scans of viral pneumonia cases (n = 151 COVID-19; n = 69 other viruses), classifying them with a probabilistic scoring system (COVID-19 Reporting and Data System – CO-RADS) in 2 phases: before (S1) and after (S2) receiving AI classifier results. Two S2 scenarios were investigated: a default approach, with AI predictions available for all cases, and a selective approach, with AI limited to equivocal S1 cases (CO-RADS = 3). Inter-reader agreement (Gwet’s AC2) and diagnostic performance were analysed. Results Radiologists demonstrated good-to-excellent agreement across all scenarios (AC2 = 0.77-0.81). Evaluation changes between S1 and S2 occurred in 18% of cases, with 29% of cases initially classified as CO-RADS = 3. In these equivocal cases, AI led to an average correct classification rate of 85%. Conversely, when radiologists were confident in their S1 diagnoses (CO-RADS ≠ 3), classification changes in S2 occurred in 7% of cases, preventing incorrect diagnoses in 45% of patients but resulting in missed correct classifications in 55%. Regarding diagnostic performance, S1 accuracy was 78%, with 15% of CO-RADS = 3 cases. In S2, under the default approach, accuracy increased to 81%, with 16% of CO-RADS = 3 cases, whereas the selective approach achieved 79% accuracy with only 10% of CO-RADS = 3 cases. Only the selective approach significantly reduced the proportion of equivocal cases (p < 0.009). Conclusions A selective AI approach effectively reduces diagnostic uncertainty without introducing unnecessary complexity, emphasising its potential to optimise radiological workflows in challenging diagnostic scenarios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rizzetto et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: