使用 GeniusTM 数字诊断系统对人工智能辅助 ThinPrep® Pap 测试筛查进行验证

{"title":"使用 GeniusTM 数字诊断系统对人工智能辅助 ThinPrep® Pap 测试筛查进行验证","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jpi.2024.100391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Advances in whole-slide imaging and artificial intelligence present opportunities for improvement in Pap test screening. To date, there have been limited studies published regarding how best to validate newer AI-based digital systems for screening Pap tests in clinical practice. In this study, we validated the Genius™ Digital Diagnostics System (Hologic) by comparing the performance to traditional manual light microscopic diagnosis of ThinPrep<strong>®</strong> Pap test slides. A total of 319 ThinPrep<strong>®</strong> Pap test cases were prospectively assessed by six cytologists and three cytopathologists by light microscopy and digital evaluation and the results compared to the original ground truth Pap test diagnosis. Concordance with the original diagnosis was significantly different by digital and manual light microscopy review when comparing across: (i) exact Bethesda System diagnostic categories (62.1% vs 55.8%, respectively, <em>p</em> = 0.014), (ii) condensed diagnostic categories (76.8% vs 71.5%, respectively, <em>p</em> = 0.027), and (iii) condensed diagnoses based on clinical management (71.5% vs 65.2%, respectively, <em>p</em> = 0.017). Time to evaluate cases was shorter for digital (M = 3.2 min, SD = 2.2) compared to manual (M = 5.9 min, SD = 3.1) review (t(352) = 19.44, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.035, 95% CI [0.905, 1.164]). Not only did our validation study demonstrate that AI-based digital Pap test evaluation had improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced screening time compared to light microscopy, but that participants reported a positive experience using this system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37769,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353924000300/pdfft?md5=f678b76ba4ddf0bb5fbfba56b65df94c&pid=1-s2.0-S2153353924000300-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of AI-assisted ThinPrep® Pap test screening using the GeniusTM Digital Diagnostics System\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpi.2024.100391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Advances in whole-slide imaging and artificial intelligence present opportunities for improvement in Pap test screening. To date, there have been limited studies published regarding how best to validate newer AI-based digital systems for screening Pap tests in clinical practice. In this study, we validated the Genius™ Digital Diagnostics System (Hologic) by comparing the performance to traditional manual light microscopic diagnosis of ThinPrep<strong>®</strong> Pap test slides. A total of 319 ThinPrep<strong>®</strong> Pap test cases were prospectively assessed by six cytologists and three cytopathologists by light microscopy and digital evaluation and the results compared to the original ground truth Pap test diagnosis. Concordance with the original diagnosis was significantly different by digital and manual light microscopy review when comparing across: (i) exact Bethesda System diagnostic categories (62.1% vs 55.8%, respectively, <em>p</em> = 0.014), (ii) condensed diagnostic categories (76.8% vs 71.5%, respectively, <em>p</em> = 0.027), and (iii) condensed diagnoses based on clinical management (71.5% vs 65.2%, respectively, <em>p</em> = 0.017). Time to evaluate cases was shorter for digital (M = 3.2 min, SD = 2.2) compared to manual (M = 5.9 min, SD = 3.1) review (t(352) = 19.44, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.035, 95% CI [0.905, 1.164]). Not only did our validation study demonstrate that AI-based digital Pap test evaluation had improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced screening time compared to light microscopy, but that participants reported a positive experience using this system.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pathology Informatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353924000300/pdfft?md5=f678b76ba4ddf0bb5fbfba56b65df94c&pid=1-s2.0-S2153353924000300-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pathology Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353924000300\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pathology Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2153353924000300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全切片成像和人工智能的进步为改进巴氏试验筛查带来了机遇。迄今为止,关于如何在临床实践中验证较新的人工智能巴氏试验筛查数字系统的研究还很有限。在本研究中,我们将 Genius™ 数字诊断系统(Hologic)的性能与 ThinPrep® 巴氏试验玻片的传统人工光学显微镜诊断进行了比较,从而对其进行了验证。六位细胞学专家和三位细胞病理学专家通过光学显微镜和数字评估对总共 319 例 ThinPrep® Pap 测试病例进行了前瞻性评估,并将评估结果与原始的地面真实 Pap 测试诊断结果进行了比较。数字光镜检查和人工光镜检查与原始诊断的一致性在以下方面有显著差异:(i) 贝塞斯达系统精确诊断类别(分别为 62.1% 对 55.8%,p = 0.014);(ii) 简化诊断类别(分别为 76.8% 对 71.5%,p = 0.027);(iii) 基于临床管理的简化诊断(分别为 71.5% 对 65.2%,p = 0.017)。与人工复查(M = 5.9 min, SD = 3.1)相比,数字复查(M = 3.2 min, SD = 2.2)的病例评估时间更短(t(352) = 19.44, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.035, 95% CI [0.905, 1.164])。我们的验证研究表明,与光学显微镜检查相比,基于人工智能的数字巴氏试验评估不仅提高了诊断准确性,缩短了筛查时间,而且参与者对该系统的使用体验表示肯定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Validation of AI-assisted ThinPrep® Pap test screening using the GeniusTM Digital Diagnostics System

Advances in whole-slide imaging and artificial intelligence present opportunities for improvement in Pap test screening. To date, there have been limited studies published regarding how best to validate newer AI-based digital systems for screening Pap tests in clinical practice. In this study, we validated the Genius™ Digital Diagnostics System (Hologic) by comparing the performance to traditional manual light microscopic diagnosis of ThinPrep® Pap test slides. A total of 319 ThinPrep® Pap test cases were prospectively assessed by six cytologists and three cytopathologists by light microscopy and digital evaluation and the results compared to the original ground truth Pap test diagnosis. Concordance with the original diagnosis was significantly different by digital and manual light microscopy review when comparing across: (i) exact Bethesda System diagnostic categories (62.1% vs 55.8%, respectively, p = 0.014), (ii) condensed diagnostic categories (76.8% vs 71.5%, respectively, p = 0.027), and (iii) condensed diagnoses based on clinical management (71.5% vs 65.2%, respectively, p = 0.017). Time to evaluate cases was shorter for digital (M = 3.2 min, SD = 2.2) compared to manual (M = 5.9 min, SD = 3.1) review (t(352) = 19.44, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.035, 95% CI [0.905, 1.164]). Not only did our validation study demonstrate that AI-based digital Pap test evaluation had improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced screening time compared to light microscopy, but that participants reported a positive experience using this system.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pathology Informatics
Journal of Pathology Informatics Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pathology Informatics (JPI) is an open access peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the advancement of pathology informatics. This is the official journal of the Association for Pathology Informatics (API). The journal aims to publish broadly about pathology informatics and freely disseminate all articles worldwide. This journal is of interest to pathologists, informaticians, academics, researchers, health IT specialists, information officers, IT staff, vendors, and anyone with an interest in informatics. We encourage submissions from anyone with an interest in the field of pathology informatics. We publish all types of papers related to pathology informatics including original research articles, technical notes, reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, editorials, symposia, meeting abstracts, book reviews, and correspondence to the editors. All submissions are subject to rigorous peer review by the well-regarded editorial board and by expert referees in appropriate specialties.
期刊最新文献
Digital mapping of resected cancer specimens: The visual pathology report A precise machine learning model: Detecting cervical cancer using feature selection and explainable AI ViCE: An automated and quantitative program to assess intestinal tissue morphology Deep feature batch correction using ComBat for machine learning applications in computational pathology LVI-PathNet: Segmentation-classification pipeline for detection of lymphovascular invasion in whole slide images of lung adenocarcinoma
×
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