Skip to main content
Passa alla visualizzazione normale.

MASSIMO MIDIRI

A multicenter evaluation of a deep learning software (LungQuant) for lung parenchyma characterization in COVID-19 pneumonia

  • Authors: Scapicchio, C.; Chincarini, A.; Ballante, E.; Berta, L.; Bicci, E.; Bortolotto, C.; Brero, F.; Cabini, R.F.; Cristofalo, G.; Fanni, S.C.; Fantacci, M.E.; Figini, S.; Galia, M.; Gemma, P.; Grassedonio, E.; Lascialfari, A.; Lenardi, C.; Lionetti, A.; Lizzi, F.; Marrale, M.; Midiri, M.; Nardi, C.; Oliva, P.; Perillo, N.; Postuma, I.; Preda, L.; Rastrelli, V.; Rizzetto, F.; Spina, N.; Talamonti, C.; Torresin, A.; Vanzulli, A.; Volpi, F.; Neri, E.; Retico, A.
  • Publication year: 2023
  • Type: Articolo in rivista
  • OA Link: http://hdl.handle.net/10447/591873

Abstract

BackgroundThe role of computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis and characterization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has been widely recognized. We evaluated the performance of a software for quantitative analysis of chest CT, the LungQuant system, by comparing its results with independent visual evaluations by a group of 14 clinical experts. The aim of this work is to evaluate the ability of the automated tool to extract quantitative information from lung CT, relevant for the design of a diagnosis support model.MethodsLungQuant segments both the lungs and lesions associated with COVID-19 pneumonia (ground-glass opacities and consolidations) and computes derived quantities corresponding to qualitative characteristics used to clinically assess COVID-19 lesions. The comparison was carried out on 120 publicly available CT scans of patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia. Scans were scored for four qualitative metrics: percentage of lung involvement, type of lesion, and two disease distribution scores. We evaluated the agreement between the LungQuant output and the visual assessments through receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (AUC) analysis and by fitting a nonlinear regression model.ResultsDespite the rather large heterogeneity in the qualitative labels assigned by the clinical experts for each metric, we found good agreement on the metrics compared to the LungQuant output. The AUC values obtained for the four qualitative metrics were 0.98, 0.85, 0.90, and 0.81.ConclusionsVisual clinical evaluation could be complemented and supported by computer-aided quantification, whose values match the average evaluation of several independent clinical experts.