Cargando…
Differing benefits of artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis for breast US according to workflow and experience level
PURPOSE: This study evaluated how artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis (AI-CAD) for breast ultrasonography (US) influences diagnostic performance and agreement between radiologists with varying experience levels in different workflows. METHODS: Images of 492 breast lesions (200...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9532201/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35850498 http://dx.doi.org/10.14366/usg.22014 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: This study evaluated how artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis (AI-CAD) for breast ultrasonography (US) influences diagnostic performance and agreement between radiologists with varying experience levels in different workflows. METHODS: Images of 492 breast lesions (200 malignant and 292 benign masses) in 472 women taken from April 2017 to June 2018 were included. Six radiologists (three inexperienced [<1 year of experience] and three experienced [10-15 years of experience]) individually reviewed US images with and without the aid of AI-CAD, first sequentially and then simultaneously. Diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement were calculated and compared between radiologists and AI-CAD. RESULTS: After implementing AI-CAD, the specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy significantly improved, regardless of experience and workflow (all P<0.001, respectively). The overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve significantly increased in simultaneous reading, but only for inexperienced radiologists. The agreement for Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS) descriptors generally increased when AI-CAD was used (κ=0.29-0.63 to 0.35-0.73). Inexperienced radiologists tended to concede to AI-CAD results more easily than experienced radiologists, especially in simultaneous reading (P<0.001). The conversion rates for final assessment changes from BI-RADS 2 or 3 to BI-RADS higher than 4a or vice versa were also significantly higher in simultaneous reading than sequential reading (overall, 15.8% and 6.2%, respectively; P<0.001) for both inexperienced and experienced radiologists. CONCLUSION: Using AI-CAD to interpret breast US improved the specificity, PPV, and accuracy of radiologists regardless of experience level. AI-CAD may work better in simultaneous reading to improve diagnostic performance and agreement between radiologists, especially for inexperienced radiologists. |
---|