Artificial Intelligence (AI) TI-RADS

Changed by Derek Smith, 26 May 2019

Updates to Article Attributes

Body was changed:

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>

ADVERTISEMENT: Supporters see fewer/no ads

Updating… Please wait.

 Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.

 Thank you for updating your details.