Cargando…

Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set

OBJECTIVE: To pilot a process for the independent external validation of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to detect breast cancer using data from the NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP). METHODS: A representative data set of mammography images from 26,000 women attending 2 NHS screening cent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cushnan, Dominic, Young, Kenneth C, Ward, Dominic, Halling-Brown, Mark D, Duffy, Stephen, Given-Wilson, Rosalind, Wallis, Matthew G, Wilkinson, Louise, Lyburn, Iain, Sidebottom, Richard, McAvinchey, Rita, Lewis, Emma B, Mackenzie, Alistair, Warren, Lucy M
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/PMC9975375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36607283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211104
_version_ 1784898861293109248
author Cushnan, Dominic
Young, Kenneth C
Ward, Dominic
Halling-Brown, Mark D
Duffy, Stephen
Given-Wilson, Rosalind
Wallis, Matthew G
Wilkinson, Louise
Lyburn, Iain
Sidebottom, Richard
McAvinchey, Rita
Lewis, Emma B
Mackenzie, Alistair
Warren, Lucy M
author_facet Cushnan, Dominic
Young, Kenneth C
Ward, Dominic
Halling-Brown, Mark D
Duffy, Stephen
Given-Wilson, Rosalind
Wallis, Matthew G
Wilkinson, Louise
Lyburn, Iain
Sidebottom, Richard
McAvinchey, Rita
Lewis, Emma B
Mackenzie, Alistair
Warren, Lucy M
author_sort Cushnan, Dominic
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To pilot a process for the independent external validation of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to detect breast cancer using data from the NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP). METHODS: A representative data set of mammography images from 26,000 women attending 2 NHS screening centres, and an enriched data set of 2054 positive cases were used from the OPTIMAM image database. The use case of the AI tool was the replacement of the first or second human reader. The performance of the AI tool was compared to that of human readers in the NHSBSP. RESULTS: Recommendations for future external validations of AI tools to detect breast cancer are provided. The tool recalled different breast cancers to the human readers. This study showed the importance of testing AI tools on all types of cases (including non-standard) and the clarity of any warning messages. The acceptable difference in sensitivity and specificity between the AI tool and human readers should be determined. Any information vital for the clinical application should be a required output for the AI tool. It is recommended that the interaction of radiologists with the AI tool, and the effect of the AI tool on arbitration be investigated prior to clinical use. CONCLUSION: This pilot demonstrated several lessons for future independent external validation of AI tools for breast cancer detection. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge has been gained towards best practice procedures for performing independent external validations of AI tools for the detection of breast cancer using data from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9975375
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher The British Institute of Radiology.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99753752023-03-02 Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set Cushnan, Dominic Young, Kenneth C Ward, Dominic Halling-Brown, Mark D Duffy, Stephen Given-Wilson, Rosalind Wallis, Matthew G Wilkinson, Louise Lyburn, Iain Sidebottom, Richard McAvinchey, Rita Lewis, Emma B Mackenzie, Alistair Warren, Lucy M Br J Radiol Diagnostic Radiology: Full Paper OBJECTIVE: To pilot a process for the independent external validation of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to detect breast cancer using data from the NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP). METHODS: A representative data set of mammography images from 26,000 women attending 2 NHS screening centres, and an enriched data set of 2054 positive cases were used from the OPTIMAM image database. The use case of the AI tool was the replacement of the first or second human reader. The performance of the AI tool was compared to that of human readers in the NHSBSP. RESULTS: Recommendations for future external validations of AI tools to detect breast cancer are provided. The tool recalled different breast cancers to the human readers. This study showed the importance of testing AI tools on all types of cases (including non-standard) and the clarity of any warning messages. The acceptable difference in sensitivity and specificity between the AI tool and human readers should be determined. Any information vital for the clinical application should be a required output for the AI tool. It is recommended that the interaction of radiologists with the AI tool, and the effect of the AI tool on arbitration be investigated prior to clinical use. CONCLUSION: This pilot demonstrated several lessons for future independent external validation of AI tools for breast cancer detection. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Knowledge has been gained towards best practice procedures for performing independent external validations of AI tools for the detection of breast cancer using data from the NHS Breast Screening Programme. The British Institute of Radiology. 2023-02 2023-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9975375/ /pubmed/36607283 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211104 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Diagnostic Radiology: Full Paper
Cushnan, Dominic
Young, Kenneth C
Ward, Dominic
Halling-Brown, Mark D
Duffy, Stephen
Given-Wilson, Rosalind
Wallis, Matthew G
Wilkinson, Louise
Lyburn, Iain
Sidebottom, Richard
McAvinchey, Rita
Lewis, Emma B
Mackenzie, Alistair
Warren, Lucy M
Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set
title Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set
title_full Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set
title_fullStr Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set
title_full_unstemmed Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set
title_short Lessons learned from independent external validation of an AI tool to detect breast cancer using a representative UK data set
title_sort lessons learned from independent external validation of an ai tool to detect breast cancer using a representative uk data set
topic Diagnostic Radiology: Full Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9975375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36607283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211104
work_keys_str_mv AT cushnandominic lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT youngkennethc lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT warddominic lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT hallingbrownmarkd lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT duffystephen lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT givenwilsonrosalind lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT wallismatthewg lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT wilkinsonlouise lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT lyburniain lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT sidebottomrichard lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT mcavincheyrita lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT lewisemmab lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT mackenziealistair lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset
AT warrenlucym lessonslearnedfromindependentexternalvalidationofanaitooltodetectbreastcancerusingarepresentativeukdataset