Publication:
Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System MRI Scoring: Diagnostic Accuracy, Interobserver Agreement, and Applicability to Machine Learning

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system magnetic resonance imaging (O-RADS MRI) and applicability to machine learning. Methods: Dynamic contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI examinations of 471 lesions were retrospectively analysed and assessed by 3 radiologists according to O-RADS MRI criteria. Radiomic data were extracted from T2 and post-contrast fat-suppressed T1-weighted images. Using these data, an artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine, random forest, and naive Bayes models were constructed. Results: Among all readers, the lowest agreement was found for the O-RADS 4 group (kappa: 0.669; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.634-0.733), followed by the O-RADS 5 group (kappa: 0.709; 95% CI 0.678-0.754). O-RADS 4 predicted a malignancy with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 74.3% (95% CI 0.701-0.782), and O-RADS 5 with an AUC of 95.5% (95% CI 0.932-0.972) (P < .001). Among the machine learning models, ANN achieved the highest success, distinguishing O-RADS groups with an AUC of 0.948, a precision of 0.861, and a recall of 0.824. Conclusion: The interobserver agreement and diagnostic sensitivity of the O-RADS MRI in assigning O-RADS 4-5 were not perfect, indicating a need for structural improvement. Integrating artificial intelligence into MRI protocols may enhance their performance. Advances in knowledge: Machine learning can achieve high accuracy in the correct classification of O-RADS MRI. Malignancy prediction rates were 74% for O-RADS 4 and 95% for O-RADS 5.

Description

Di̇lek, Okan/0000-0002-2144-2460; Bas, Sevda/0000-0002-6454-6470; Tas, Zeynel Abidin/0000-0002-5504-4487; Karaaslan Erişen, Kübra/0009-0007-7842-0346; Demirel, Emin/0000-0002-0675-3893; Akkaya, Hüseyin/0000-0001-5821-670X

Citation

WoS Q

Q1

Scopus Q

Q2

Source

British Journal of Radiology

Volume

98

Issue

1166

Start Page

254

End Page

261

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By