Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
568 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2023-07-04
2025-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
\- This study used a pretrained information of appendix (IA) model based on a fully automated diagnostic framework to predict three classes with probability and feature mapping: non-appendicitis, simple appendicitis, and complicated appendicitis.
The pipeline of IA model embedding parameters learned from the 3D CT image of 7,147 patients consisted of a two-stage binary algorithm connected to transfer learning with three 3D CNN models: DenseNet, EfficientNet, and ResNet.
\- A two-stage binary algorithm for transfer learning was applied to learn inherent patterns from the 3D images of three true classes, as way a clinician does when deciding treatment for appendicitis. In the first step of the pipeline, a Stage 1 classification model was developed to identify non-appendicitis vs. appendicitis. In the second step of the pipeline, the Stage 2 classification model identified simple vs. complicated appendicitis from the data transferred with the trainable parameters learned in Stage 1.
Currently, the final IA model has been externally validated using a never-before-seen dataset from an outside institution with broad eligibility criteria for patients who visited the emergency room with abdominal pain and underwent abdominopelvic CT due to clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis.
Intervention This is a comparative study between human and IA models for the negative appendectomy rate (NAR) in non-, simple, and complicated appendicitis of a prospective randomized dataset, which was collected from CT scans of patients who visited the emergency room with acute abdominal pain. The participants in the control arm were ten non-radiologists.
The IA model is not allowed to impede the preoperative decision process of clinicians in ongoing clinical practice regarding the legal and ethical aspects of interrogating the diagnostic frameworks of the IA model on the mathematical reasoning for an outcome in terms of protecting human subjects.
Considering the minimal risk to human subjects and the ethical and legal aspects of artificial intelligence, the study design strictly allocates CT images to non-radiologists and IA models after completion of treatment for appendicitis with or without pathologic confirmation.
Data allocation and performance evaluation
\- To compare the IA model to humans and non-radiologists equally, the interpretation condition for a non-radiologist should meet all criteria as follows: Only CT images without such variables as age, sex, and laboratory values should be randomly assigned; affiliation of both the non-radiologist and patient of the CT image should not be the same; the allocation ratio for non-appendicitis, simple, and complicated appendicitis assigned to the non-radiologist should be blinded; and the range of the CT image for interpretation should be identical to the range of the ROI for the appendix, which is generated by automatic localization of the IA model. To evaluate the diagnostic performance in humans, four test items were set up by a non-radiologist as follows: (1) visualization of the appendix; (2) exclusion of appendicitis; (3) complications; and (4) diagnosis of CT images.
The primary and secondary outcomes were assessed using the results of the four questions for the participants and the diagnostic performance of the IA model in the same dataset.
Ethical statement According to the "Guide to Utilizing Healthcare Data" and "Guide to Handling Pseudonym Information" of the Personal Information Protection Commission of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, data exfiltration with security assurance of the data archive was conducted with the approval of the Data Review Board at participating institutions. The central institutional review board (IRB) and IRBs of all participating institutions approved this study.
Sample size and statistical methods The investigators's prior study, which completed external validation of the IA model through data exfiltration of external institutions, showed an NAR of 12.4% in the external dataset. The standard reference value for non-radiologists for NAR has been reported as 10.5% ± 5%. Therefore, the acceptable difference in NAR between the IA model and non-radiologists for clinical application should be less than 10.0% of the non-inferiority margin.
The sample size for the randomized controlled dataset for a single institution was 263 assuming a 95% confidence interval, statistical power of 90%, two-tails sided α = 0.05, significance level = 0.05, and effect size = 0.2 at the Z-test. Two external institutions participated in this study. Due to data heterogeneity, normalization, and prevalence differences across regions between the two external institutions, the sample size was calculated for each institution. Therefore, assuming 263 patients per institution with a follow-up loss of 10%, the total sample size was 568.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
In this study, we confirmed that the intervention did not affect the included patients. Considering the minimal risk to human subjects and the ethical and legal aspects of artificial intelligence, we excluded the involvement of the IA model in all treatment processes.
DIAGNOSTIC
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
IA model
A fully automated diagnostic framework based on 3D-CNN model to predict non-appendicitis, simple and complicated appendicitis
Information of Appendix (IA) model
Deep learning model
Non-radiologist
Ten non-radiologists participated in this study. CT image same to IA model was allocated to radiologist randomly.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Information of Appendix (IA) model
Deep learning model
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
i) Failure to meet the CT protocol criteria of this study: liver CT, biliary CT, etc. (if contrast phase was different); ureter CT, etc. (if contrast media was not used and the reconstruction method was different); non-enhanced CT (when contrast media was not used); and appendix CT or low-dose CT (when radiation dose was low).
ii) When the quality of the CT image is significantly reduced, as follows: when blurring occurs (motion artifact) or metal artifact (when internal fixation is performed due to spinal surgery).
iii) when it was evident from the medical record review that clinical information suggested that APCT was performed due to the suspicion of a condition other than appendicitis, as follows: suspected acute cholecystitis due to RUQ tenderness and Murphy's sign; suspected urolithiasis due to flank pain and gross hematuria; suspected pancreatitis due to a history of pancreatitis; alcohol abuse; and suspected gynecological diseases due to vaginal discharge. Suspected panperitonitis due to whole abdominal tenderness, rebound tenderness, and unstable vital signs. Patients with acute cholecystitis, ureteral stones, pancreatitis, or acute peritonitis due to small bowel or colon perforation were also excluded.
v) diagnosed by ultrasound sonography vi) Patients who were transferred to the emergency department after a diagnosis of appendicitis at an outside hospital or ambulatory care were excluded.
vii) Patients with appendicitis who did not undergo surgical treatment because of the enrollment protocol of other ongoing studies.
viii) patients who had undergone an appendectomy
12 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Doheon Institute for Digital Innovation In Medicine
UNKNOWN
Medical A.I. Center of Hallym University
UNKNOWN
Hallym University Medical Center
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Iltae Son
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Iltae Son
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Hallym University Medical Center
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Hallym University Medical Center
Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Medical A.I. Center of Hallym University
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Project MHo4
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id