PURPOSE: Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging can be obtained faster with shorter repletion time (TR), but it gets noisier. We hypothesized that shorter-TR FLAIR obtained at 3 tesla (3T) with a 32-channel coil may be comparable to conventional FLAIR. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value between conventional FLAIR (TR = 9000 ms, FLAIR9000) and shorter-TR FLAIR (TR = 6000 ms, FLAIR6000) at 3T in terms of diffusion-weighted imaging-FLAIR mismatch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited 184 patients with acute ischemic stroke (28 patients < 4.5 hours) who had undergone 5-mm diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and two successive 5-mm FLAIR images (no gap; in-plane resolution, 0.9 × 0.9 mm) at 3T with a 32-channel coil. The acquisition times for FLAIR9000 and FLAIR6000 were 108 seconds (generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions [GRAPPA] = 2) and 60 seconds (GRAPPA = 3), respectively. Two radiologists independently assessed the paired imaging sets (DWI-FLAIR9000 and DWI-FLAIR6000) for the presence of matched hyperintense lesions on each FLAIR imaging. The signal intensity ratios (area of DWI lesion to contralateral normal-appearing region) on both FLAIR imaging sets were compared. RESULTS: DWI-FLAIR9000 mismatch was present in 39 of 184 (21.2%) patients, which was perfectly the same on FLAIR6000. Three of 145 patients (2%) with DWI-matched lesions on FLAIR9000 had discrepancy on FLAIR6000, showing no significant difference (P > 0.05). Interobserver agreement was excellent for both DWI-FLAIR9000 and DWI-FLAIR6000 (k = 0.904 and 0.883, respectively). Between the two FLAIR imaging sets, there was no significant difference of signal intensity ratio (mean, standard deviation; 1.25 ± 0.20; 1.24 ± 0.20, respectively) (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For the determination of mismatch or match between DWI and FLAIR imaging, there is no significant difference between FLAIR9000 and FLAIR6000 at 3T with a 32-channel coil.
Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Stroke

Background/Aims: We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user’s experience and polyp characteristics. Methods: We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed. Results: The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively). Conclusions CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user’s experience, particularly for challenging lesions.

Background/Aims: We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user’s experience and polyp characteristics. Methods: We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed. Results: The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively). Conclusions CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user’s experience, particularly for challenging lesions.

Background/Aims: We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user’s experience and polyp characteristics. Methods: We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed. Results: The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively). Conclusions CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user’s experience, particularly for challenging lesions.

Background/Aims: We investigated how interactions between humans and computer-aided detection (CADe) systems are influenced by the user’s experience and polyp characteristics. Methods: We developed a CADe system using YOLOv4, trained on 16,996 polyp images from 1,914 patients and 1,800 synthesized sessile serrated lesion (SSL) images. The performance of polyp detection with CADe assistance was evaluated using a computerized test module. Eighteen participants were grouped by colonoscopy experience (nurses, fellows, and experts). The value added by CADe based on the histopathology and detection difficulty of polyps were analyzed. Results: The area under the curve for CADe was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.91). CADe assistance increased overall polyp detection accuracy from 69.7% to 77.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.69 to 2.09). However, accuracy decreased when CADe inaccurately detected a polyp (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87). The impact of CADe assistance was most and least prominent in the nurses (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.27) and the experts (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.74), respectively. Participants demonstrated better sensitivity with CADe assistance, achieving 81.7% for adenomas and 92.4% for easy-to-detect polyps, surpassing the standalone CADe performance of 79.7% and 89.8%, respectively. For SSLs and difficult-to-detect polyps, participants' sensitivities with CADe assistance (66.5% and 71.5%, respectively) were below those of standalone CADe (81.1% and 74.4%). Compared to the other two groups (56.1% and 61.7%), the expert group showed sensitivity closest to that of standalone CADe in detecting SSLs (79.7% vs 81.1%, respectively). Conclusions CADe assistance boosts polyp detection significantly, but its effectiveness depends on the user’s experience, particularly for challenging lesions.