Related Experiment Video For Artificial intelligence
Updated: Aug 7, 2025
Author Spotlight: A 3D Digital Model for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Nodules
Published on: May 19, 2023
"Will I change nodule management recommendations if I change my CAD system?"-impact of volumetric deviation between
Alan A Peters1,2,3,4, Andreas Christe5, Oyunbileg von Stackelberg6,7,8
1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 672, Heidelberg, Germany. alan.peters@insel.ch.
Objectives:
To evaluate and compare the measurement accuracy of two different computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems regarding artificial pulmonary nodules and assess the clinical impact of volumetric inaccuracies in a phantom study.
Methods:
In this phantom study, 59 different phantom arrangements with 326 artificial nodules (178 solid, 148 ground-glass) were scanned at 80 kV, 100 kV, and 120 kV. Four different nodule diameters were used: 5 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm. Scans were analyzed by a deep-learning (DL)-based CAD and a standard CAD system. Relative volumetric errors (RVE) of each system vs. ground truth and the relative volume difference (RVD) DL-based vs. standard CAD were calculated. The Bland-Altman method was used to define the limits of agreement (LOA). The hypothetical impact on LungRADS classification was assessed for both systems.
Results:
There was no difference between the three voltage groups regarding nodule volumetry. Regarding the solid nodules, the RVE of the 5-mm-, 8-mm-, 10-mm-, and 12-mm-size groups for the DL CAD/standard CAD were 12.2/2.8%, 1.3/ - 2.8%, - 3.6/1.5%, and - 12.2/ - 0.3%, respectively. The corresponding values for the ground-glass nodules (GGN) were 25.6%/81.0%, 9.0%/28.0%, 7.6/20.6%, and 6.8/21.2%. The mean RVD for solid nodules/GGN was 1.3/ - 15.2%. Regarding the LungRADS classification, 88.5% and 79.8% of all solid nodules were correctly assigned by the DL CAD and the standard CAD, respectively. 14.9% of the nodules were assigned differently between the systems.
Conclusions:
Patient management may be affected by the volumetric inaccuracy of the CAD systems and hence demands supervision and/or manual correction by a radiologist.
Key Points:
• The DL-based CAD system was more accurate in the volumetry of GGN and less accurate regarding solid nodules than the standard CAD system. • Nodule size and attenuation have an effect on the measurement accuracy of both systems; tube voltage has no effect on measurement accuracy. • Measurement inaccuracies of CAD systems can have an impact on patient management, which demands supervision by radiologists.
