Diagnostic performance with and without artificial intelligence assistance in real-world screening mammography

IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Journal of Radiology Open Pub Date : 2024-01-13 DOI:10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100545
Si Eun Lee , Hanpyo Hong , Eun-Kyung Kim
{"title":"Diagnostic performance with and without artificial intelligence assistance in real-world screening mammography","authors":"Si Eun Lee ,&nbsp;Hanpyo Hong ,&nbsp;Eun-Kyung Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiologists by providing and withholding AI-CAD results alternatively every month.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board with a waiver for informed consent. Between August 2020 and May 2022, 1819 consecutive women (mean age 50.8 ± 9.4 years) with 2061 screening mammography and ultrasound performed on the same day in a single institution were included. Radiologists interpreted screening mammography in clinical practice with AI-CAD results being provided or withheld alternatively by month. The AI-CAD results were retrospectively obtained for analysis even when withheld from radiologists. The diagnostic performances of radiologists and stand-alone AI-CAD were compared and the performances of radiologists with and without AI-CAD assistance were also compared by cancer detection rate, recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-nine breast cancer patients and 1790 women without cancers were included. Diagnostic performances of the radiologists did not significantly differ with and without AI-CAD assistance. Radiologists with AI-CAD assistance showed the same sensitivity (76.5%) and similar specificity (92.3% vs 93.8%), AUC (0.844 vs 0.851), and recall rates (8.8% vs. 7.4%) compared to standalone AI-CAD. Radiologists without AI-CAD assistance showed lower specificity (91.9% vs 94.6%) and accuracy (91.5% vs 94.1%) and higher recall rates (8.6% vs 5.9%, all p &lt; 0.05) compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Radiologists showed no significant difference in diagnostic performance when both screening mammography and ultrasound were performed with or without AI-CAD assistance for mammography. However, without AI-CAD assistance, radiologists showed lower specificity and accuracy and higher recall rates compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100545"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047723000710/pdfft?md5=c846cac93a8f564a2b410650560d00bd&pid=1-s2.0-S2352047723000710-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047723000710","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiologists by providing and withholding AI-CAD results alternatively every month.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board with a waiver for informed consent. Between August 2020 and May 2022, 1819 consecutive women (mean age 50.8 ± 9.4 years) with 2061 screening mammography and ultrasound performed on the same day in a single institution were included. Radiologists interpreted screening mammography in clinical practice with AI-CAD results being provided or withheld alternatively by month. The AI-CAD results were retrospectively obtained for analysis even when withheld from radiologists. The diagnostic performances of radiologists and stand-alone AI-CAD were compared and the performances of radiologists with and without AI-CAD assistance were also compared by cancer detection rate, recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC).

Results

Twenty-nine breast cancer patients and 1790 women without cancers were included. Diagnostic performances of the radiologists did not significantly differ with and without AI-CAD assistance. Radiologists with AI-CAD assistance showed the same sensitivity (76.5%) and similar specificity (92.3% vs 93.8%), AUC (0.844 vs 0.851), and recall rates (8.8% vs. 7.4%) compared to standalone AI-CAD. Radiologists without AI-CAD assistance showed lower specificity (91.9% vs 94.6%) and accuracy (91.5% vs 94.1%) and higher recall rates (8.6% vs 5.9%, all p < 0.05) compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.

Conclusion

Radiologists showed no significant difference in diagnostic performance when both screening mammography and ultrasound were performed with or without AI-CAD assistance for mammography. However, without AI-CAD assistance, radiologists showed lower specificity and accuracy and higher recall rates compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在真实世界乳腺 X 射线筛查中,有人工智能辅助和无人工智能辅助的诊断性能
目的为了评估基于人工智能的计算机辅助诊断(AI-CAD)在乳腺X光筛查中的应用,我们分析了放射科医生每月交替提供和不提供 AI-CAD 结果的诊断表现。研究纳入了 2020 年 8 月至 2022 年 5 月期间,在一家机构连续接受了 2061 次乳腺 X 线照相术和超声波检查的 1819 名女性(平均年龄为 50.8 ± 9.4 岁)。放射科医生在临床实践中对乳腺X光筛查进行解释,按月提供或不提供 AI-CAD 结果。即使放射科医生不提供 AI-CAD 结果,也会通过回顾性方式获取 AI-CAD 结果进行分析。通过癌症检出率、召回率、灵敏度、特异性、准确性和接收者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC),比较了放射科医生和独立 AI-CAD 的诊断表现,以及有 AI-CAD 辅助和无 AI-CAD 辅助的放射科医生的表现。在有 AI-CAD 辅助和没有 AI-CAD 辅助的情况下,放射科医生的诊断表现没有明显差异。与独立的 AI-CAD 相比,有 AI-CAD 辅助的放射科医生显示出相同的灵敏度(76.5%)和相似的特异性(92.3% 对 93.8%)、AUC(0.844 对 0.851)和召回率(8.8% 对 7.4%)。与独立的 AI-CAD 相比,没有 AI-CAD 辅助的放射科医生的特异性(91.9% vs 94.6%)和准确性(91.5% vs 94.1%)较低,召回率(8.6% vs 5.9%,所有 p < 0.05)较高。但是,与独立的 AI-CAD 相比,在没有 AI-CAD 辅助的情况下,放射医师的特异性和准确性较低,召回率较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
期刊最新文献
Comparison of objective quality parameters between CTA and CTP angiographic reconstructions in ischemic stroke patients. Assessment of hemodynamic disturbances and impaired ventricular filling in asymptomatic fontan patients: A 4D flow CMR study. Peroneus brevis split tear - A challenging diagnosis: A pictorial review of magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging. Part 1. Anatomical basis and clinical insights. CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics nomogram to predict spread through air spaces in lung adenocarcinoma with diameter ≤ 3 cm: A multicenter study. Potential of spectral imaging generated by contrast-enhanced dual-energy CT for lung cancer histopathological classification - A preliminary study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1