Development and Validation of a Sham-AI Model for Intracranial Aneurysm Detection at CT Angiography

Purpose To evaluate a sham-artificial intelligence (AI) model acting as a placebo control for a standard-AI model for diagnosis of intracranial aneurysm. Materials and Methods This retrospective crossover, blinded, multireader, multicase study was conducted from November 2022 to March 2023. A sham-AI model with near-zero sensitivity and similar specificity to a standard AI model was developed using 16 422 CT angiography examinations. Digital subtraction angiography-verified CT angiographic examinations from four hospitals were collected, half of which were processed by standard AI and the others by sham AI to generate sequence A; sequence B was generated in the reverse order. Twenty-eight radiologists from seven hospitals were randomly assigned to either sequence and then assigned to the other sequence after a washout period. The diagnostic performances of radiologists alone, radiologists with standard-AI assistance, and radiologists with sham-AI assistance were compared using sensitivity and specificity, and radiologists' susceptibility to sham AI suggestions was assessed. Results The testing dataset included 300 patients (median age, 61.0 years [IQR, 52.0-67.0]; 199 male), 50 of whom had aneurysms. Standard AI and sham AI performed as expected (sensitivity, 96.0% vs 0.0%; specificity, 82.0% vs 76.0%). The differences in sensitivity and specificity between standard AI-assisted and sham AI-assisted readings were 20.7% (95% CI: 15.8, 25.5 [superiority]) and 0.0% (95% CI: -2.0, 2.0 [noninferiority]), respectively. The difference between sham AI-assisted readings and radiologists alone was -2.6% (95% CI: -3.8, -1.4 [noninferiority]) for both sensitivity and specificity. After sham-AI suggestions, 5.3% (44 of 823) of true-positive and 1.2% (seven of 577) of false-negative results of radiologists alone were changed. Conclusion Radiologists' diagnostic performance was not compromised when aided by the proposed sham-AI model compared with their unassisted performance. <b>Keywords:</b> CT Angiography, Vascular, Intracranial Aneurysm, Sham AI <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. See also commentary by Mayfield and Romero in this issue.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Radiology Artificial Intelligence
Published
2025-03-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.240140
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Intracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.78
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development and Validation of a Sham-AI Model for Intracranial Aneurysm Detection at CT Angiography

Fandong Zhang, Mayidili Nijiati, Chengwei Pan, Long Jiang Zhang et al.
2 citations
Radiology Artificial Intelligence
Intracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
2.78
article

Development and Validation of a Sham-AI Model for Intracranial Aneurysm Detection at CT Angiography

Fandong Zhang, Mayidili Nijiati, Chengwei Pan, Long Jiang Zhang, Manting Zhang, Yonggao Zhang, Haiting Yang, Shiyu Ren, Yongyue Wei, Z.‐G. Zhou, Jiyao Ma, Jun Li, Lu Li, Zijian Chen, Junlin Zhou, Hao Wang, Bin Hu, Chang Sheng Zhou, Bo He, Zhao Shi, Chunfeng Hu, Yizhou Yu, Jia-Ke Dong, Sheng Li, Mengjie Lu
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate a sham-artificial intelligence (AI) model acting as a placebo control for a standard-AI model for diagnosis of intracranial aneurysm. Materials and Methods This retrospective crossover, blinded, multireader, multicase study was conducted from November 2022 to March 2023. A sham-AI model with near-zero sensitivity and similar specificity to a standard AI model was developed using 16 422 CT angiography examinations. Digital subtraction angiography-verified CT angiographic examinations from four hospitals were collected, half of which were processed by standard AI and the others by sham AI to generate sequence A; sequence B was generated in the reverse order. Twenty-eight radiologists from seven hospitals were randomly assigned to either sequence and then assigned to the other sequence after a washout period. The diagnostic performances of radiologists alone, radiologists with standard-AI assistance, and radiologists with sham-AI assistance were compared using sensitivity and specificity, and radiologists' susceptibility to sham AI suggestions was assessed. Results The testing dataset included 300 patients (median age, 61.0 years [IQR, 52.0-67.0]; 199 male), 50 of whom had aneurysms. Standard AI and sham AI performed as expected (sensitivity, 96.0% vs 0.0%; specificity, 82.0% vs 76.0%). The differences in sensitivity and specificity between standard AI-assisted and sham AI-assisted readings were 20.7% (95% CI: 15.8, 25.5 [superiority]) and 0.0% (95% CI: -2.0, 2.0 [noninferiority]), respectively. The difference between sham AI-assisted readings and radiologists alone was -2.6% (95% CI: -3.8, -1.4 [noninferiority]) for both sensitivity and specificity. After sham-AI suggestions, 5.3% (44 of 823) of true-positive and 1.2% (seven of 577) of false-negative results of radiologists alone were changed. Conclusion Radiologists' diagnostic performance was not compromised when aided by the proposed sham-AI model compared with their unassisted performance. <b>Keywords:</b> CT Angiography, Vascular, Intracranial Aneurysm, Sham AI <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. See also commentary by Mayfield and Romero in this issue.

Radiology Artificial IntelligenceVol. 7(3)
Ningbo University (CN), Xuzhou Medical College (CN), Peking University (CN), Kunming Medical University (CN), Nanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command (CN), Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University (CN), Lanzhou University Second Hospital (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (CN), Lanzhou University (CN), Beihang University (CN), Nanjing Medical University (CN), Nanjing University (CN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Intracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
2.78
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.