Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 10, 2025

Detection and Isolation of Cancer in Prostate Biopsies Using Stimulated Raman Histology and Artificial Intelligence
Published on: June 10, 2025
Standalone AI Versus AI-Assisted Radiologists in Emergency ICH Detection: A Prospective, Multicenter Diagnostic
Anna N Khoruzhaya1, Polina A Sakharova1, Kirill M Arzamasov1
1State Budget-Funded Health Care Institution of the City of Moscow, Research and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Moscow Health Care Department, 127051 Moscow, Russia.
Radiologists with AI assistance significantly outperformed standalone artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs) on brain CT scans. AI shows potential as a supplementary tool, but requires refinement for autonomous use due to a high false-positive rate.
Area of Science:
- Medical imaging
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare
- Neurology
Background:
- Intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs) demand rapid diagnosis for optimal patient outcomes.
- Artificial intelligence (AI) offers potential solutions for neuroimaging challenges, including radiologist shortages and increased workloads.
- This study directly compares the diagnostic efficacy of standalone AI versus AI-assisted radiologists in ICH detection.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of three commercial AI services against AI-assisted radiologists in identifying intracranial hemorrhages (ICHs) on brain CT scans.
- To assess the effectiveness of AI as a primary diagnostic tool versus an auxiliary aid in neuroimaging.
Main Methods:
- A prospective, multicenter study involving 3409 brain CT scans from 67 medical institutions over 15 months.
- Comparison of three registered AI services against radiologist interpretations aided by AI.
- Statistical analysis using McNemar's test and Cohen's h effect size to evaluate diagnostic metrics.
Main Results:
- AI-assisted radiologists demonstrated statistically superior performance across all metrics: sensitivity (98.91% vs. 95.91%), specificity (99.83% vs. 87.35%), and accuracy (99.53% vs. 90.11%).
- Radiologists with AI assistance had a 323-fold higher diagnostic odds ratio and a 73-fold lower false-positive rate (4 vs. 293 cases) compared to standalone AI.
- Complete error complementarity was observed, with AI identifying radiologist misses and vice versa, indicating synergistic potential.
Conclusions:
- Radiologists remain the gold standard for ICH diagnosis, significantly outperforming standalone AI systems.
- AI shows promise as a "second reader" to improve diagnostic sensitivity, but requires substantial refinement to reduce its high false-positive rate.
- Optimal implementation involves integrating AI as an auxiliary tool within radiologist workflows, not as an autonomous diagnostic system.
More Related Videos
09:49Dual-phase Cone-beam Computed Tomography to See, Reach, and Treat Hepatocellular Carcinoma during Drug-eluting Beads Transarterial Chemo-embolization
Published on: December 2, 2013
05:49Author Spotlight: Advancing CBCT and Digital Dental Image Integration with AI-Assisted Digitization
Published on: February 23, 2024