Comparison of error rates between four pretrained DenseNet convolutional neural network models and 13 board-certified veterinary radiologists when evaluating 15 labels of canine thoracic radiographs.

Journal: Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association
Published Date:

Abstract

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are commonly used as artificial intelligence (AI) tools for evaluating radiographs, but published studies testing their performance in veterinary patients are currently lacking. The purpose of this retrospective, secondary analysis, diagnostic accuracy study was to compare the error rates of four CNNs to the error rates of 13 veterinary radiologists for evaluating canine thoracic radiographs using an independent gold standard. Radiographs acquired at a referral institution were used to evaluate the four CNNs sharing a common architecture. Fifty radiographic studies were selected at random. The studies were evaluated independently by three board-certified veterinary radiologists for the presence or absence of 15 thoracic labels, thus creating the gold standard through the majority rule. The labels included "cardiovascular," "pulmonary," "pleural," "airway," and "other categories." The error rates for each of the CNNs and for 13 additional board-certified veterinary radiologists were calculated on those same studies. There was no statistical difference in the error rates among the four CNNs for the majority of the labels. However, the CNN's training method impacted the overall error rate for three of 15 labels. The veterinary radiologists had a statistically lower error rate than all four CNNs overall and for five labels (33%). There was only one label ("esophageal dilation") for which two CNNs were superior to the veterinary radiologists. Findings from the current study raise numerous questions that need to be addressed to further develop and standardize AI in the veterinary radiology environment and to optimize patient care.

Authors

  • Hespel Adrien-Maxence
    Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
  • Boissady Emilie
    PicoxIA, Maisons-Alfort, France.
  • De La Comble Alois
    PicoxIA, Maisons-Alfort, France.
  • Acierno Michelle
    Michelle Acierno Veterinary Radiology Consulting, Kirkland, WA and Summit Veterinary Referral Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
  • Alexander Kate
    DMV Veterinary Center, Diagnostic Imaging, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Auger Mylene
    Animages, Longueil, Quebec, Canada.
  • Biller David
    Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Clinical Sciences, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
  • de Swarte Marie
    VetCT, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  • Fuerst Jason
    VCA, Santa Monica, California, USA.
  • Green Eric
    The Ohio State University, Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
  • Hoey Séamus
    University College Dublin, Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Koernig Kevin
    AIS, Fountain Valley, California, USA.
  • Lee Alison
    Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Starkville, Mississippi, USA.
  • MacLellan Megan
    BluePearl, Veterinary Partners, Elden Prairie, Minnesota, USA.
  • McAllister Hester
    University College Dublin, Veterinary Diagnostic Imaging, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Rechy Jr Jaime
    Bluepearl Veterinary Partners, Franklin, Tennessee, USA.
  • Xiaojuan Zhu
    Office of Information Technology, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
  • Zarelli Micaela
    AIS, Fountain Valley, California, USA.
  • Morandi Federica
    Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.