Murphy Paul M, An Julie Y, Wojdyla Luke M, Searleman Adam C, Khurana Aman, Loehfelm Thomas W, Fowler Kathryn J, Longhurst Christopher A
University of California-San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Department of Radiology, University of California-San Diego, 200 W. Arbor Dr. MC 0834, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA.
J Imaging Inform Med. 2024 Nov 4. doi: 10.1007/s10278-024-01292-7.
Next-generation virtual/augmented reality (VR/AR) headsets may rival the desktop computer systems that are approved for clinical interpretation of radiologic images, but require validation for high-resolution low-luminance diagnoses like diverticulitis. The primary aim of this study is to compare diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT between radiologists using a headset versus a desktop. The secondary aim is to survey participating radiologists about the usage of both devices. This pilot study retrospectively included 110 patients (mean age 64 ± 14 years, 62 women) who had abdomen/pelvis CT scans for which the report mentioned the presence or absence of diverticulitis. Scans were dichotomized and matched by time, for a total of 55 cases with diverticulitis and 55 controls with no diverticulitis. Six radiologists were oriented to the VR/AR headset (Apple Vision Pro) and viewer app (Visage Ease VP) using ten scans. They each scored 100 unknown scans on a 6-level scale for diverticulitis (1 = no diverticulitis, 6 = diverticulitis) on the headset and then on a desktop. Time per case was recorded. Finally, they completed a survey using 5-level scales about the ease of use of the headset and viewer app (1 = difficult, 5 = easy), about their experience with the headset (1 = bad, 5 = good), and about their preference between devices (1 = desktop, 5 = headset). Summary statistics and multi-reader multi-case ROC curves were calculated. The AUC (and 95% confidence interval) for diverticulitis was 0.93 (0.88-0.97) with the headset and 0.94 (0.91-0.98) with the desktop (p = 0.40). The median (and first-third quartiles) of time per case was 57 (41-76) seconds for the headset and 31 (22-64) seconds for the desktop (p < 0.001). Average survey scores ranged from 3.3 to 5 for ease of use, from 3 to 4.7 for experience, and from 2.2 to 3.3 for preference. Diagnostic performance for detecting diverticulitis on CT was similar between the next-generation VR/AR headset and desktop. Ease of use, experience, and preference varied across different aspects of the devices and among radiologists.
下一代虚拟/增强现实(VR/AR)头戴设备可能与已获批用于放射影像临床解读的台式计算机系统相媲美,但对于憩室炎等高分辨率低亮度诊断,需要进行验证。本研究的主要目的是比较使用头戴设备与台式计算机的放射科医生在CT上检测憩室炎的诊断性能。次要目的是就这两种设备的使用情况对参与研究的放射科医生进行调查。这项前瞻性研究回顾性纳入了110例患者(平均年龄64±14岁,女性62例),这些患者进行了腹部/盆腔CT扫描,报告中提及了憩室炎的有无。扫描结果被二分并按时间匹配,共有55例憩室炎病例和55例无憩室炎的对照。6名放射科医生使用10次扫描熟悉了VR/AR头戴设备(苹果Vision Pro)和查看应用程序(Visage Ease VP)。他们每人在头戴设备上然后在台式计算机上,按照6级评分标准(1=无憩室炎,6=憩室炎)对100次未知扫描进行憩室炎评分。记录每个病例的时间。最后,他们使用5级评分标准完成了一项关于头戴设备和查看应用程序易用性(1=困难,5=容易)、他们使用头戴设备的体验(1=差,5=好)以及他们对设备偏好(1=台式计算机,5=头戴设备)的调查。计算了汇总统计数据和多读者多病例ROC曲线。使用头戴设备时憩室炎的AUC(及95%置信区间)为0.93(0.88-0.97),使用台式计算机时为0.94(0.91-0.98)(p=0.40)。每个病例的时间中位数(及第一-第三四分位数),头戴设备为57(41-76)秒,台式计算机为31(22-64)秒(p<0.001)。平均调查得分在易用性方面为3.3至5分,体验方面为3至4.7分,偏好方面为2.2至3.3分。下一代VR/AR头戴设备和台式计算机在CT上检测憩室炎的诊断性能相似。设备不同方面以及放射科医生之间的易用性、体验和偏好各不相同。