A comparative evaluation of four commercially available artificial intelligence software solutions for brain volumetry and lesion segmentation in dementia
Author Block: G. Di Cerbo, G. Saltarelli, A. Innocenzi, M. Cella, C. De Felici, F. Bruno, A. Splendiani, E. Di Cesare; L'Aquila/IT
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the operating features and analysis outputs of four different commercially available software for brain volumetric analysis.
Methods or Background: We analyzed consecutive brain MRI scan of 32 patients (25 males, aged between 50 and 90 years) evaluated in a singles Institution for cognitive decline. All MRI examinations were performed on 3T scanner (GE MR750w.), including a volumetric T1 GRE sequence (slice 1 mm, TR 8.5, frequency FoV 25.6, phase FoV 0.8).
MRI data were analyzed through four different dedicated softwares (S1, S2, S3, S4) after quality check by an experienced neuroradiologist.
Volumetric output data of brain segmentation and volume for frontal, temporal, parietal, occipital lobes, hippocampus, and lateral ventricles, were collected and compared.
Results or Findings: The results revealed no significant consensus among the four artificial intelligence software applications in measuring various brain areas.
S1-S2 showed non statistically significant output values in all brain regions.
S1-S3 showed statistically significant differences in frontal and parietal lobe, lateral ventricles and hippocampus.
S1-S4 showed statistically significant differences in frontal parietal and occipital lobe, and lateral ventricles.
S2-S3 showed statistically significant differences in temporal and occipital lobes.
S3-S4 showed statistically significant differences in parietal and occipital lobes, hippocampus and lateral ventricles.
Conclusion: Although AI software are becoming increasingly popular in clinical practice, the findings indicate a low degree of concordance among the four applications evaluated in this study. Therefore, clinicians integrating these tools into routine practice should be aware of the limited result interchangeability across different software platforms and consider their use as complementary aids rather than substitutes for clinical expertise.
Limitations: Small sample size
Funding for this study: None
Has your study been approved by an ethics committee? Yes
Ethics committee - additional information: Local IRB