Artificial Intelligence (AI) TI-RADS
Updates to Article Attributes
AI TI-RADS is a data driven analysis and revision of the 2017 ACR TI-RADS 1. Published in May 2019 2, this had the intention of simplyfing categorisation and improving specificity while maintaining high sensitivity. This system used a training set of 1325 nodules with known cytology and a genetic learning algorithm to optimise the current lexicon and scoring structure. This system was then applied by expert and nonexpert radiologists and compared with known ACR TI-RADS categories.
Changes to ACR TI-RADS
The five imaging characteristic categories were maintained with the following changes in each:
-
composition - only solid nodules receive points
- cystic and spongiform nodules again receive 0 points, but AI TI-RADS found this sufficient to assign benignity regardless of findings in any of the other categories
- mixed cystic / solid nodules received 0 points instead of 1 point
- solid or near completely solid nodules received 3 points instead of 2 points
- can't classify 0 points instead of 2 points
-
echogenicity - only hypoechoic nodules receive points
- iso / hyperechoic and can't classify nodules 0 points instead of 1 point
-
shape
- taller-than-wide nodules only 1 point instead of 3 points
-
margin
- no change
-
echogenic foci
- macrocalcification receive 0 points instead of 1 point
The point level for each TR category and recommendation for FNA by size remained the same.
Outcome comparison with ACR TI-RADS
Tested against 100 nodules, sensitivity was identical between AI and ACR TI-RADS (93%). Specificity was increased for AI TI-RADS at 65% compared with 47% with a single expert reader, and also an increase of 55% from 47% in a nonexpert reader group.
43 nodules were down categorised, with 15 nodules not meeting requirement for FNA (all of which were benign). No extra malignancies were missed using the AI TI-RADS scoring algorithm.
See also
-</ul><p>The point level for each TR category and recommendation for FNA by size remained the same.</p><h4>Outcome comparison with ACR TI-RADS</h4><p>Tested against 100 nodules, sensitivity was identical between AI and ACR TI-RADS (93%). Specificity was increased for AI TI-RADS at 65% compared with 47% with a single expert reader, and also an increase of 55% from 47% in a nonexpert reader group.</p><p>43 nodules were down categorised, with 15 nodules not meeting requirement for FNA (all of which were benign). No extra malignancies were missed using the AI TI-RADS scoring algorithm.</p><h4>See also</h4><ul><li><a title="ACR Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS)" href="/articles/acr-thyroid-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-acr-ti-rads">ACR TI-RADS</a></li></ul>- +</ul><p>The point level for each TR category and recommendation for FNA by size remained the same.</p><h4>Outcome comparison with ACR TI-RADS</h4><p>Tested against 100 nodules, sensitivity was identical between AI and ACR TI-RADS (93%). Specificity was increased for AI TI-RADS at 65% compared with 47% with a single expert reader, and also an increase of 55% from 47% in a nonexpert reader group.</p><p>43 nodules were down categorised, with 15 nodules not meeting requirement for FNA (all of which were benign). No extra malignancies were missed using the AI TI-RADS scoring algorithm.</p><h4>See also</h4><ul><li><a href="/articles/acr-thyroid-imaging-reporting-and-data-system-acr-ti-rads">ACR TI-RADS</a></li></ul>