Detection of Incidental Pulmonary Embolism on Conventional Contrast-Enhanced Chest CT: Comparison of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm and Clinical Reports.

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have shown strong performance for detection of pulmonary embolism (PE) on CT examinations performed using a dedicated protocol for PE detection. AI performance is less well studied for detecting PE on examinations ordered for reasons other than suspected PE (i.e., incidental PE [iPE]). The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of an AI algorithm for detection of iPE on conventional contrast-enhanced chest CT examinations. This retrospective study included 2555 patients (mean age, 53.2 ± 14.5 [SD] years; 1340 women, 1215 men) who underwent 3003 conventional contrast-enhanced chest CT examinations (i.e., not using pulmonary CTA protocols) between September 2019 and February 2020. A commercial AI algorithm was applied to the images to detect acute iPE. A vendor-supplied natural language processing (NLP) algorithm was applied to the clinical reports to identify examinations interpreted as positive for iPE. For all examinations that were positive by the AI-based image review or by NLP-based report review, a multireader adjudication process was implemented to establish a reference standard for iPE. Images were also reviewed to identify explanations of AI misclassifications. On the basis of the adjudication process, the frequency of iPE was 1.3% (40/3003). AI detected four iPEs missed by clinical reports, and clinical reports detected seven iPEs missed by AI. AI, compared with clinical reports, exhibited significantly lower PPV (86.8% vs 97.3%, = .03) and specificity (99.8% vs 100.0%, = .045). Differences in sensitivity (82.5% vs 90.0%, = .37) and NPV (99.8% vs 99.9%, = .36) were not significant. For AI, neither sensitivity nor specificity varied significantly in association with age, sex, patient status, or cancer-related clinical scenario (all > .05). Explanations of false-positives by AI included metastatic lymph nodes and pulmonary venous filling defect, and explanations of false-negatives by AI included surgically altered anatomy and small-caliber subsegmental vessels. AI had high NPV and moderate PPV for iPE detection, detecting some iPEs missed by radiologists. Potential applications of the AI tool include serving as a second reader to help detect additional iPEs or as a worklist triage tool to allow earlier iPE detection and intervention. Various explanations of AI misclassifications may provide targets for model improvement.