Brandon Nelson

Elena Sizikova, Andreu Badal, Jana G. Delfino et al.

A key challenge for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions in radiology is solving the associated data limitations. Obtaining sufficient and representative patient datasets with appropriate annotations may be burdensome due to high acquisition cost, safety limitations, patient privacy restrictions or low disease prevalence rates. In silico data offers a number of potential advantages to patient data, such as diminished patient harm, reduced cost, simplified data acquisition, scalability, improved quality assurance testing, and a mitigation approach to data imbalances. We summarize key research trends and practical uses for synthetically generated data for radiological applications of AI. Specifically, we discuss different types of techniques for generating synthetic examples, their main application areas, and related quality control assessment issues. We also discuss current approaches for evaluating synthetic imaging data. Overall, synthetic data holds great promise in addressing current data availability gaps, but additional work is needed before its full potential is realized.

Ghada Zamzmi, Kesavan Venkatesh, Brandon Nelson et al.

Background: Machine learning (ML) methods often fail with data that deviates from their training distribution. This is a significant concern for ML-enabled devices in clinical settings, where data drift may cause unexpected performance that jeopardizes patient safety. Method: We propose a ML-enabled Statistical Process Control (SPC) framework for out-of-distribution (OOD) detection and drift monitoring. SPC is advantageous as it visually and statistically highlights deviations from the expected distribution. To demonstrate the utility of the proposed framework for monitoring data drift in radiological images, we investigated different design choices, including methods for extracting feature representations, drift quantification, and SPC parameter selection. Results: We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework for two tasks: 1) differentiating axial vs. non-axial computed tomography (CT) images and 2) separating chest x-ray (CXR) from other modalities. For both tasks, we achieved high accuracy in detecting OOD inputs, with 0.913 in CT and 0.995 in CXR, and sensitivity of 0.980 in CT and 0.984 in CXR. Our framework was also adept at monitoring data streams and identifying the time a drift occurred. In a simulation with 100 daily CXR cases, we detected a drift in OOD input percentage from 0-1% to 3-5% within two days, maintaining a low false-positive rate. Through additional experimental results, we demonstrate the framework's data-agnostic nature and independence from the underlying model's structure. Conclusion: We propose a framework for OOD detection and drift monitoring that is agnostic to data, modality, and model. The framework is customizable and can be adapted for specific applications.