Purpose To compare the performance of a deep-learning bone age assessment model based on hand radiographs with that of expert radiologists and that of existing automated models. Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved the study. A total of 14 036 clinical hand radiographs and corresponding reports were obtained from two children's hospitals to train and validate the model. For the first test set, composed of 200 examinations, the mean of bone age estimates from the clinical report and three additional human reviewers was used as the reference standard. Overall model performance was assessed by comparing the root mean square (RMS) and mean absolute difference (MAD) between the model estimates and the reference standard bone ages. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement were calculated in a pairwise fashion for all reviewers and the model. The RMS of a second test set composed of 913 examinations from the publicly available Digital Hand Atlas was compared with published reports of an existing automated model. Results The mean difference between bone age estimates of the model and of the reviewers was 0 years, with a mean RMS and MAD of 0.63 and 0.50 years, respectively. The estimates of the model, the clinical report, and the three reviewers were within the 95% limits of agreement. RMS for the Digital Hand Atlas data set was 0.73 years, compared with 0.61 years of a previously reported model. Conclusion A deep-learning convolutional neural network model can estimate skeletal maturity with accuracy similar to that of an expert radiologist and to that of existing automated models. RSNA, 2017 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on January 19, 2018.

Purpose To evaluate the performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network (CNN) model compared with a traditional natural language processing (NLP) model in extracting pulmonary embolism (PE) findings from thoracic computed tomography (CT) reports from two institutions. Materials and Methods Contrast material-enhanced CT examinations of the chest performed between January 1, 1998, and January 1, 2016, were selected. Annotations by two human radiologists were made for three categories: the presence, chronicity, and location of PE. Classification of performance of a CNN model with an unsupervised learning algorithm for obtaining vector representations of words was compared with the open-source application PeFinder. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and F1 scores for both the CNN model and PeFinder in the internal and external validation sets were determined. Results The CNN model demonstrated an accuracy of 99% and an area under the curve value of 0.97. For internal validation report data, the CNN model had a statistically significant larger F1 score (0.938) than did PeFinder (0.867) when classifying findings as either PE positive or PE negative, but no significant difference in sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy was found. For external validation report data, no statistical difference between the performance of the CNN model and PeFinder was found. Conclusion A deep learning CNN model can classify radiology free-text reports with accuracy equivalent to or beyond that of an existing traditional NLP model. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.