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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |