Cargando…

Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the false interpretations between artificial intelligence (AI) and radiologists in screening mammography to get a better understanding of how the distribution of diagnostic mistakes might change when moving from entirely radiologist-driven to AI-integrated breast canc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salim, Mattie, Dembrower, Karin, Eklund, Martin, Smith, Kevin, Strand, Fredrik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Institute of Radiology. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10607417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37660400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230210
_version_ 1785127537834196992
author Salim, Mattie
Dembrower, Karin
Eklund, Martin
Smith, Kevin
Strand, Fredrik
author_facet Salim, Mattie
Dembrower, Karin
Eklund, Martin
Smith, Kevin
Strand, Fredrik
author_sort Salim, Mattie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the false interpretations between artificial intelligence (AI) and radiologists in screening mammography to get a better understanding of how the distribution of diagnostic mistakes might change when moving from entirely radiologist-driven to AI-integrated breast cancer screening. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective case–control study was based on a mammography screening cohort from 2008 to 2015. The final study population included screening examinations for 714 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 8029 randomly selected healthy controls. Oversampling of controls was applied to attain a similar cancer proportion as in the source screening cohort. We examined how false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) assessments by AI, the first reader (RAD 1) and the second reader (RAD 2), were associated with age, density, tumor histology and cancer invasiveness in a single- and double-reader setting. RESULTS: For each reader, the FN assessments were distributed between low- and high-density females with 53 (42%) and 72 (58%) for AI; 59 (36%) and 104 (64%) for RAD 1 and 47 (36%) and 84 (64%) for RAD 2. The corresponding numbers for FP assessments were 1820 (47%) and 2016 (53%) for AI; 1568 (46%) and 1834 (54%) for RAD 1 and 1190 (43%) and 1610 (58%) for RAD 2. For ductal cancer, the FN assessments were 79 (77%) for AI CAD; with 120 (83%) for RAD 1 and with 96 (16%) for RAD 2. For the double-reading simulation, the FP assessments were distributed between younger and older females with 2828 (2.5%) and 1554 (1.4%) for RAD 1 + RAD 2; 3850 (3.4%) and 2940 (2.6%) for AI+RAD 1 and 3430 (3%) and 2772 (2.5%) for AI+RAD 2. CONCLUSION: The most pronounced decrease in FN assessments was noted for females over the age of 55 and for high density-women. In conclusion, AI could have an important complementary role when combined with radiologists to increase sensitivity for high-density and older females. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our results highlight the potential impact of integrating AI in breast cancer screening, particularly to improve interpretation accuracy. The use of AI could enhance screening outcomes for high-density and older females.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10607417
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher The British Institute of Radiology.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106074172023-10-28 Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography Salim, Mattie Dembrower, Karin Eklund, Martin Smith, Kevin Strand, Fredrik Br J Radiol Full Paper OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the false interpretations between artificial intelligence (AI) and radiologists in screening mammography to get a better understanding of how the distribution of diagnostic mistakes might change when moving from entirely radiologist-driven to AI-integrated breast cancer screening. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective case–control study was based on a mammography screening cohort from 2008 to 2015. The final study population included screening examinations for 714 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 8029 randomly selected healthy controls. Oversampling of controls was applied to attain a similar cancer proportion as in the source screening cohort. We examined how false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) assessments by AI, the first reader (RAD 1) and the second reader (RAD 2), were associated with age, density, tumor histology and cancer invasiveness in a single- and double-reader setting. RESULTS: For each reader, the FN assessments were distributed between low- and high-density females with 53 (42%) and 72 (58%) for AI; 59 (36%) and 104 (64%) for RAD 1 and 47 (36%) and 84 (64%) for RAD 2. The corresponding numbers for FP assessments were 1820 (47%) and 2016 (53%) for AI; 1568 (46%) and 1834 (54%) for RAD 1 and 1190 (43%) and 1610 (58%) for RAD 2. For ductal cancer, the FN assessments were 79 (77%) for AI CAD; with 120 (83%) for RAD 1 and with 96 (16%) for RAD 2. For the double-reading simulation, the FP assessments were distributed between younger and older females with 2828 (2.5%) and 1554 (1.4%) for RAD 1 + RAD 2; 3850 (3.4%) and 2940 (2.6%) for AI+RAD 1 and 3430 (3%) and 2772 (2.5%) for AI+RAD 2. CONCLUSION: The most pronounced decrease in FN assessments was noted for females over the age of 55 and for high density-women. In conclusion, AI could have an important complementary role when combined with radiologists to increase sensitivity for high-density and older females. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our results highlight the potential impact of integrating AI in breast cancer screening, particularly to improve interpretation accuracy. The use of AI could enhance screening outcomes for high-density and older females. The British Institute of Radiology. 2023-11 2023-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10607417/ /pubmed/37660400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230210 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted non-commercial reuse, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Full Paper
Salim, Mattie
Dembrower, Karin
Eklund, Martin
Smith, Kevin
Strand, Fredrik
Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography
title Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography
title_full Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography
title_fullStr Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography
title_full_unstemmed Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography
title_short Differences and similarities in false interpretations by AI CAD and radiologists in screening mammography
title_sort differences and similarities in false interpretations by ai cad and radiologists in screening mammography
topic Full Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10607417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37660400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20230210
work_keys_str_mv AT salimmattie differencesandsimilaritiesinfalseinterpretationsbyaicadandradiologistsinscreeningmammography
AT dembrowerkarin differencesandsimilaritiesinfalseinterpretationsbyaicadandradiologistsinscreeningmammography
AT eklundmartin differencesandsimilaritiesinfalseinterpretationsbyaicadandradiologistsinscreeningmammography
AT smithkevin differencesandsimilaritiesinfalseinterpretationsbyaicadandradiologistsinscreeningmammography
AT strandfredrik differencesandsimilaritiesinfalseinterpretationsbyaicadandradiologistsinscreeningmammography