Integrating Machine Learning in Clinical Practice for Characterizing the Malignancy of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules in PET/CT Screening

Diseases Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.3390/diseases12060115
Ioannis D. Apostolopoulos, Nikolaos D. Papathanasiou, D. Apostolopoulos, Nikolaos I. Papandrianos, Elpiniki I. Papageorgiou
{"title":"Integrating Machine Learning in Clinical Practice for Characterizing the Malignancy of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules in PET/CT Screening","authors":"Ioannis D. Apostolopoulos, Nikolaos D. Papathanasiou, D. Apostolopoulos, Nikolaos I. Papandrianos, Elpiniki I. Papageorgiou","doi":"10.3390/diseases12060115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study investigates the efficiency of integrating Machine Learning (ML) in clinical practice for diagnosing solitary pulmonary nodules’ (SPN) malignancy. Patient data had been recorded in the Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Patras, in Greece. A dataset comprising 456 SPN characteristics extracted from CT scans, the SUVmax score from the PET examination, and the ultimate outcome (benign/malignant), determined by patient follow-up or biopsy, was used to build the ML classifier. Two medical experts provided their malignancy likelihood scores, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and without prior knowledge of the true label of the SPN. Incorporating human assessments into ML model training improved diagnostic efficiency by approximately 3%, highlighting the synergistic role of human judgment alongside ML. Under the latter setup, the ML model had an accuracy score of 95.39% (CI 95%: 95.29–95.49%). While ML exhibited swings in probability scores, human readers excelled in discerning ambiguous cases. ML outperformed the best human reader in challenging instances, particularly in SPNs with ambiguous probability grades, showcasing its utility in diagnostic grey zones. The best human reader reached an accuracy of 80% in the grey zone, whilst ML exhibited 89%. The findings underline the collaborative potential of ML and human expertise in enhancing SPN characterization accuracy and confidence, especially in cases where diagnostic certainty is elusive. This study contributes to understanding how integrating ML and human judgement can optimize SPN diagnostic outcomes, ultimately advancing clinical decision-making in PET/CT screenings.","PeriodicalId":11200,"journal":{"name":"Diseases","volume":"32 19","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases12060115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study investigates the efficiency of integrating Machine Learning (ML) in clinical practice for diagnosing solitary pulmonary nodules’ (SPN) malignancy. Patient data had been recorded in the Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Patras, in Greece. A dataset comprising 456 SPN characteristics extracted from CT scans, the SUVmax score from the PET examination, and the ultimate outcome (benign/malignant), determined by patient follow-up or biopsy, was used to build the ML classifier. Two medical experts provided their malignancy likelihood scores, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and without prior knowledge of the true label of the SPN. Incorporating human assessments into ML model training improved diagnostic efficiency by approximately 3%, highlighting the synergistic role of human judgment alongside ML. Under the latter setup, the ML model had an accuracy score of 95.39% (CI 95%: 95.29–95.49%). While ML exhibited swings in probability scores, human readers excelled in discerning ambiguous cases. ML outperformed the best human reader in challenging instances, particularly in SPNs with ambiguous probability grades, showcasing its utility in diagnostic grey zones. The best human reader reached an accuracy of 80% in the grey zone, whilst ML exhibited 89%. The findings underline the collaborative potential of ML and human expertise in enhancing SPN characterization accuracy and confidence, especially in cases where diagnostic certainty is elusive. This study contributes to understanding how integrating ML and human judgement can optimize SPN diagnostic outcomes, ultimately advancing clinical decision-making in PET/CT screenings.
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
将机器学习融入临床实践,在 PET/CT 筛查中确定单发肺结节的恶性程度
本研究探讨了在临床实践中整合机器学习(ML)诊断单发肺结节(SPN)恶性肿瘤的效率。希腊帕特雷大学医院核医学科记录了患者数据。数据集包括从 CT 扫描中提取的 456 个 SPN 特征、PET 检查的 SUVmax 分数以及通过患者随访或活检确定的最终结果(良性/恶性),用于构建 ML 分类器。两位医学专家考虑到患者的临床状况,在事先不了解 SPN 真实标签的情况下提供了恶性可能性评分。将人工评估纳入 ML 模型训练可将诊断效率提高约 3%,这凸显了人工判断与 ML 的协同作用。在后一种设置下,ML 模型的准确率为 95.39%(CI 95%:95.29-95.49%)。虽然 ML 在概率得分上表现出波动性,但人类读者在辨别模棱两可的案例方面表现出色。在具有挑战性的情况下,尤其是在概率等级不明确的 SPN 中,ML 的表现优于最佳人类阅读器,显示了其在诊断灰色地带的实用性。最佳人类阅读器在灰色区域的准确率为 80%,而 ML 的准确率为 89%。研究结果凸显了人工智能和人类专业知识在提高 SPN 特征描述准确性和可信度方面的合作潜力,尤其是在诊断确定性难以确定的情况下。这项研究有助于了解如何将人工智能和人类判断结合起来,优化 SPN 诊断结果,最终推动 PET/CT 筛查的临床决策。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of Helicobacter pylori Eradication on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Onset and Disease Activity: To Eradicate or Not to Eradicate? Unveiling the Immunostimulatory Potential of Rhus Toxicodendron in Immunocompromised Balb/C Mice Induced with Cyclophosphamide Could Ocular Glands Be Infected by SARS-CoV-2? Sudden Cardiac Death-Etiology, Risk Factors and Demographic Characteristics: An Extensive Study of 1618 Forensic Autopsies Paediatric Calcaneal Osteochondroma: A Case Report and a Literature Review
×
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