Familiarity, confidence and preference of artificial intelligence feedback and prompts by Australian breast cancer screening readers.

Phuong Dung Yun Trieu, Melissa L Barron, Zhengqiang Jiang, Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba, Ziba Gandomkar, Sarah J Lewis
{"title":"Familiarity, confidence and preference of artificial intelligence feedback and prompts by Australian breast cancer screening readers.","authors":"Phuong Dung Yun Trieu, Melissa L Barron, Zhengqiang Jiang, Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba, Ziba Gandomkar, Sarah J Lewis","doi":"10.1071/AH23275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objectives This study explored the familiarity, perceptions and confidence of Australian radiology clinicians involved in reading screening mammograms, regarding artificial intelligence (AI) applications in breast cancer detection. Methods Sixty-five radiologists, breast physicians and radiology trainees participated in an online survey that consisted of 23 multiple choice questions asking about their experience and familiarity with AI products. Furthermore, the survey asked about their confidence in using AI outputs and their preference for AI modes applied in a breast screening context. Participants' responses to questions were compared using Pearson's χ 2 test. Bonferroni-adjusted significance tests were used for pairwise comparisons. Results Fifty-five percent of respondents had experience with AI in their workplaces, with automatic density measurement powered by machine learning being the most familiar AI product (69.4%). The top AI outputs with the highest ranks of perceived confidence were 'Displaying suspicious areas on mammograms with the percentage of cancer possibility' (67.8%) and 'Automatic mammogram classification (normal, benign, cancer, uncertain)' (64.6%). Radiology and breast physicians preferred using AI as second-reader mode (75.4% saying 'somewhat happy' to 'extremely happy') over triage (47.7%), pre-screening and first-reader modes (both with 26.2%) (P  < 0.001). Conclusion The majority of screen readers expressed increased confidence in utilising AI for highlighting suspicious areas on mammograms and for automatically classifying mammograms. They considered AI as an optimal second-reader mode being the most ideal use in a screening program. The findings provide valuable insights into the familiarities and expectations of radiologists and breast clinicians for the AI products that can enhance the effectiveness of the breast cancer screening programs, benefitting both healthcare professionals and patients alike.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":"299-311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH23275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives This study explored the familiarity, perceptions and confidence of Australian radiology clinicians involved in reading screening mammograms, regarding artificial intelligence (AI) applications in breast cancer detection. Methods Sixty-five radiologists, breast physicians and radiology trainees participated in an online survey that consisted of 23 multiple choice questions asking about their experience and familiarity with AI products. Furthermore, the survey asked about their confidence in using AI outputs and their preference for AI modes applied in a breast screening context. Participants' responses to questions were compared using Pearson's χ 2 test. Bonferroni-adjusted significance tests were used for pairwise comparisons. Results Fifty-five percent of respondents had experience with AI in their workplaces, with automatic density measurement powered by machine learning being the most familiar AI product (69.4%). The top AI outputs with the highest ranks of perceived confidence were 'Displaying suspicious areas on mammograms with the percentage of cancer possibility' (67.8%) and 'Automatic mammogram classification (normal, benign, cancer, uncertain)' (64.6%). Radiology and breast physicians preferred using AI as second-reader mode (75.4% saying 'somewhat happy' to 'extremely happy') over triage (47.7%), pre-screening and first-reader modes (both with 26.2%) (P  < 0.001). Conclusion The majority of screen readers expressed increased confidence in utilising AI for highlighting suspicious areas on mammograms and for automatically classifying mammograms. They considered AI as an optimal second-reader mode being the most ideal use in a screening program. The findings provide valuable insights into the familiarities and expectations of radiologists and breast clinicians for the AI products that can enhance the effectiveness of the breast cancer screening programs, benefitting both healthcare professionals and patients alike.

澳大利亚乳腺癌筛查读者对人工智能反馈和提示的熟悉程度、信心和偏好。
方法 65 名放射科医生、乳腺科医生和放射科实习生参加了一项在线调查,调查包括 23 道选择题,询问他们对人工智能产品的经验和熟悉程度。此外,调查还询问了他们对使用人工智能输出结果的信心,以及他们对应用于乳腺筛查的人工智能模式的偏好。参与者对问题的回答采用 Pearson's χ2 检验进行比较。结果55%的受访者在其工作场所有过使用人工智能的经验,其中最熟悉的人工智能产品是由机器学习驱动的自动密度测量(69.4%)。可信度最高的人工智能产品是 "显示乳房 X 光片上的可疑区域及癌症可能性百分比"(67.8%)和 "乳房 X 光片自动分类(正常、良性、癌症、不确定)"(64.6%)。放射科和乳腺科医生更喜欢使用人工智能作为第二阅片模式(75.4% 表示 "比较满意 "至 "非常满意"),而不是分流模式(47.7%)、预检模式和第一阅片模式(均为 26.2%)(P.3)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信