Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Demystification of AI-driven medical image interpretation: past, present and future

  • Computer Applications
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recent explosion of ‘big data’ has ushered in a new era of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in every sphere of technological activity, including medicine, and in particular radiology. However, the recent success of AI in certain flagship applications has, to some extent, masked decades-long advances in computational technology development for medical image analysis. In this article, we provide an overview of the history of AI methods for radiological image analysis in order to provide a context for the latest developments. We review the functioning, strengths and limitations of more classical methods as well as of the more recent deep learning techniques. We discuss the unique characteristics of medical data and medical science that set medicine apart from other technological domains in order to highlight not only the potential of AI in radiology but also the very real and often overlooked constraints that may limit the applicability of certain AI methods. Finally, we provide a comprehensive perspective on the potential impact of AI on radiology and on how to evaluate it not only from a technical point of view but also from a clinical one, so that patients can ultimately benefit from it.

Key Points

• Artificial intelligence (AI) research in medical imaging has a long history

• The functioning, strengths and limitations of more classical AI methods is reviewed, together with that of more recent deep learning methods.

• A perspective is provided on the potential impact of AI on radiology and on its evaluation from both technical and clinical points of view.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AI:

Artificial intelligence

ANN:

Artificial neural network

LASSO:

Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator

PICO:

Patient/problem, intervention, comparison intervention and outcomes

TB:

Tuberculosis

References

  1. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521:436–444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tang A, Tam R, Cadrin-Chênevert A et al Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Artificial Intelligence Working Group (2018) Canadian Association of Radiologists white paper on artificial intelligence in radiology. Can Assoc Radiol J 69:120–135

  3. Summers RM (2016) Progress in fully automated abdominal CT interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:67–79

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Matsuyama T (1989) Expert systems for image processing: knowledge-based composition of image analysis processes. Comput Vision Graph 48:22–49

  5. Stansfield SA (1986) ANGY: a rule-based expert system for automatic segmentation of coronary vessels from digital subtracted angiograms. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2:188–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Park H, Bland PH, Meyer CR (2003) Construction of an abdominal probabilistic atlas and its application in segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:483–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Warfield SK, Zou KH, Wells WM. (2004) Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:903–21

  8. Okada T, Linguraru MG, Hori M, Summers RM, Tomiyama N, Sato Y (2015) Abdominal multi-organ segmentation from CT images using conditional shape-location and unsupervised intensity priors. Med Image Anal 26:1–18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Iglesias JE, Sabuncu MR (2015) Multi-atlas segmentation of biomedical images: a survey. Med Image Anal 24:205–219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Leemput K, Maes F, Vandermeulen D, Colchester A, Suetens P (2001) Automated segmentation of multiple sclerosis lesions by model outlier detection. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:677–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Prastawa M, Bullitt E, Moon N, Van Leemput K, Gerig G (2003) Automatic brain tumor segmentation by subject specific modification of atlas priors. Acad Radiol 10:1341–1348

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Erus G, Zacharaki EI, Davatzikos C (2014) Individualized statistical learning from medical image databases: application to identification of brain lesions. Med Image Anal 18:542–554

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Viergever MA, Maintz JBA, Klein S, Murphy K, Staring M, Pluim JPW (2016) A survey of medical image registration - under review. Med Image Anal 33:140–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kraus WL (2015) Editorial: would you like a hypothesis with those data? Omics and the age of discovery science. Mol Endocrinol 29:1531–1534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Aerts HJ (2016) The potential of radiomic-based phenotyping in precision medicine: a review. JAMA Oncol 2:1636–1642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20:273–297

    Google Scholar 

  17. Quinlan JR (1986) Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn 1:81–106

    Google Scholar 

  18. Matzner-Lober E, Suehs CM, Dohan A, Molinari N (2018) Thoughts on entering correlated imaging variables into a multivariable model: application to radiomics and texture analysis. Diagn Interv Imaging 99:269–270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Guyon I, Elisseeff A (2003) An introduction to variable and feature selection. J Mach Learn Res 3:1157–1182

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 58:267–288

  21. Chartrand G, Cheng PM, Vorontsov E et al (2017) Deep learning: a primer for radiologists. Radiographics 37:2113–2131

  22. Werbos P (1974) Beyond regression: new tools for prediction and analysis in the behavioral sciences. PhD thesis, Harvard Univ

  23. Rosenblatt F (1957). The Perceptron—a perceiving and recognizing automaton. Report 85-460-1, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory

  24. Lawrence N (2016) Deep learning, Pachinko and James Watt: efficiency is the driver of uncertainty. http://inverseprobability.com/2016/03/04/deep-learning-and-uncertainty. Accessed 23 May 2018

  25. Szegedy C, Zaremba W, Sutskever I et al (2013) Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv:1312.6199

  26. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS (1995) The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 123:A12–A13

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci 22:1359–1366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferrante E, Dokania PK, Marini R, Paragios N (2017) Deformable registration through learning of context-specific metric aggregation. Machine Learning in Medical Imaging Workshop. MLMI (MICCAI 2017), Sep 2017, Quebec City, Canada

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Peter Savadjiev, Jaron Chong, Anthony Dohan, Caroline Reinhold & Benoit Gallix

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Jaron Chong, Anthony Dohan, Caroline Reinhold & Benoit Gallix

  3. Department of Body & Interventional Imaging, Hôpital Lariboisière-AP-HP, Université Diderot-Paris 7 and INSERM U965, 75475, Paris Cedex 10, France

    Anthony Dohan

  4. Ecole CentraleSupelec, 91190, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

    Maria Vakalopoulou & Nikos Paragios

  5. Inria Saclay/Ile-de-France, 91120, Palaiseau, France

    Maria Vakalopoulou

  6. TheraPanacea, 75014, Paris, France

    Nikos Paragios

Authors
  1. Peter Savadjiev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaron Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony Dohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Vakalopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline Reinhold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nikos Paragios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Benoit Gallix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benoit Gallix.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Benoit Gallix.

Conflict of Interest

Professor Nikos Paragions declares a relationship with the following company: TheraPanacea, Paris, France.

The other co-authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and Biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because this is a review article, no study was performed.

Ethical Approval

Institutional review board approval was not required because this is a review article and no study was performed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Savadjiev, P., Chong, J., Dohan, A. et al. Demystification of AI-driven medical image interpretation: past, present and future. Eur Radiol 29, 1616–1624 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5674-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5674-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation