Cargando…

AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives

OBJECTIVES: This study surveyed the views of breast screening readers in the UK on how to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology into breast screening mammography. METHODS: An online questionnaire was circulated to the UK breast screening readers. Questions included their degree of appr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Vries, Clarisse Florence, Colosimo, Samantha J., Boyle, Moragh, Lip, Gerald, Anderson, Lesley A., Staff, Roger T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9733732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484919
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01322-4
_version_ 1784846438056853504
author de Vries, Clarisse Florence
Colosimo, Samantha J.
Boyle, Moragh
Lip, Gerald
Anderson, Lesley A.
Staff, Roger T.
author_facet de Vries, Clarisse Florence
Colosimo, Samantha J.
Boyle, Moragh
Lip, Gerald
Anderson, Lesley A.
Staff, Roger T.
author_sort de Vries, Clarisse Florence
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This study surveyed the views of breast screening readers in the UK on how to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology into breast screening mammography. METHODS: An online questionnaire was circulated to the UK breast screening readers. Questions included their degree of approval of four AI implementation scenarios: AI as triage, AI as a companion reader/reader aid, AI replacing one of the initial two readers, and AI replacing all readers. They were also asked to rank five AI representation options (discrete opinion; mammographic scoring; percentage score with 100% indicating malignancy; region of suspicion; heat map) and indicate which evidence they considered necessary to support the implementation of AI into their practice among six options offered. RESULTS: The survey had 87 nationally accredited respondents across the UK; 73 completed the survey in full. Respondents approved of AI replacing one of the initial two human readers and objected to AI replacing all human readers. Participants were divided on AI as triage and AI as a reader companion. A region of suspicion superimposed on the image was the preferred AI representation option. Most screen readers considered national guidelines (77%), studies using a nationally representative dataset (65%) and independent prospective studies (60%) as essential evidence. Participants’ free-text comments highlighted concerns and the need for additional validation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, screen readers supported the introduction of AI as a partial replacement of human readers and preferred a graphical indication of the suspected tumour area, with further evidence and national guidelines considered crucial prior to implementation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01322-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9733732
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97337322022-12-10 AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives de Vries, Clarisse Florence Colosimo, Samantha J. Boyle, Moragh Lip, Gerald Anderson, Lesley A. Staff, Roger T. Insights Imaging Original Article OBJECTIVES: This study surveyed the views of breast screening readers in the UK on how to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology into breast screening mammography. METHODS: An online questionnaire was circulated to the UK breast screening readers. Questions included their degree of approval of four AI implementation scenarios: AI as triage, AI as a companion reader/reader aid, AI replacing one of the initial two readers, and AI replacing all readers. They were also asked to rank five AI representation options (discrete opinion; mammographic scoring; percentage score with 100% indicating malignancy; region of suspicion; heat map) and indicate which evidence they considered necessary to support the implementation of AI into their practice among six options offered. RESULTS: The survey had 87 nationally accredited respondents across the UK; 73 completed the survey in full. Respondents approved of AI replacing one of the initial two human readers and objected to AI replacing all human readers. Participants were divided on AI as triage and AI as a reader companion. A region of suspicion superimposed on the image was the preferred AI representation option. Most screen readers considered national guidelines (77%), studies using a nationally representative dataset (65%) and independent prospective studies (60%) as essential evidence. Participants’ free-text comments highlighted concerns and the need for additional validation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, screen readers supported the introduction of AI as a partial replacement of human readers and preferred a graphical indication of the suspected tumour area, with further evidence and national guidelines considered crucial prior to implementation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-022-01322-4. Springer Vienna 2022-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9733732/ /pubmed/36484919 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01322-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
de Vries, Clarisse Florence
Colosimo, Samantha J.
Boyle, Moragh
Lip, Gerald
Anderson, Lesley A.
Staff, Roger T.
AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives
title AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives
title_full AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives
title_fullStr AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives
title_full_unstemmed AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives
title_short AI in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives
title_sort ai in breast screening mammography: breast screening readers' perspectives
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9733732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36484919
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01322-4
work_keys_str_mv AT devriesclarisseflorence aiinbreastscreeningmammographybreastscreeningreadersperspectives
AT colosimosamanthaj aiinbreastscreeningmammographybreastscreeningreadersperspectives
AT boylemoragh aiinbreastscreeningmammographybreastscreeningreadersperspectives
AT lipgerald aiinbreastscreeningmammographybreastscreeningreadersperspectives
AT andersonlesleya aiinbreastscreeningmammographybreastscreeningreadersperspectives
AT staffrogert aiinbreastscreeningmammographybreastscreeningreadersperspectives
AT aiinbreastscreeningmammographybreastscreeningreadersperspectives