Anatomical Positional Embeddings

We propose a self-supervised model producing 3D anatomical positional embeddings (APE) of individual medical image voxels. APE encodes voxels' anatomical closeness, i.e., voxels of the same organ or nearby organs always have closer positional embeddings than the voxels of more distant body parts. In contrast to the existing models of anatomical positional embeddings, our method is able to efficiently produce a map of voxel-wise embeddings for a whole volumetric input image, which makes it an optimal choice for different downstream applications. We train our APE model on 8400 publicly available CT images of abdomen and chest regions. We demonstrate its superior performance compared with the existing models on anatomical landmark retrieval and weakly-supervised few-shot localization of 13 abdominal organs. As a practical application, we show how to cheaply train APE to crop raw CT images to different anatomical regions of interest with 0.99 recall, while reducing the image volume by 10-100 times. The code and the pre-trained APE model are available at https://github.com/mishgon/ape .

The impact of deep learning aid on the workload and interpretation accuracy of radiologists on chest computed tomography: a cross-over reader study

Interpretation of chest computed tomography (CT) is time-consuming. Previous studies have measured the time-saving effect of using a deep-learning-based aid (DLA) for CT interpretation. We evaluated the joint impact of a multi-pathology DLA on the time and accuracy of radiologists' reading. 40 radiologists were randomly split into three experimental arms: control (10), who interpret studies without assistance; informed group (10), who were briefed about DLA pathologies, but performed readings without it; and the experimental group (20), who interpreted half studies with DLA, and half without. Every arm used the same 200 CT studies retrospectively collected from BIMCV-COVID19 dataset; each radiologist provided readings for 20 CT studies. We compared interpretation time, and accuracy of participants diagnostic report with respect to 12 pathological findings. Mean reading time per study was 15.6 minutes [SD 8.5] in the control arm, 13.2 minutes [SD 8.7] in the informed arm, 14.4 [SD 10.3] in the experimental arm without DLA, and 11.4 minutes [SD 7.8] in the experimental arm with DLA. Mean sensitivity and specificity were 41.5 [SD 30.4], 86.8 [SD 28.3] in the control arm; 53.5 [SD 22.7], 92.3 [SD 9.4] in the informed non-assisted arm; 63.2 [SD 16.4], 92.3 [SD 8.2] in the experimental arm without DLA; and 91.6 [SD 7.2], 89.9 [SD 6.0] in the experimental arm with DLA. DLA speed up interpretation time per study by 2.9 minutes (CI95 [1.7, 4.3], p<0.0005), increased sensitivity by 28.4 (CI95 [23.4, 33.4], p<0.0005), and decreased specificity by 2.4 (CI95 [0.6, 4.3], p=0.13). Of 20 radiologists in the experimental arm, 16 have improved reading time and sensitivity, two improved their time with a marginal drop in sensitivity, and two participants improved sensitivity with increased time. Overall, DLA introduction decreased reading time by 20.6%.