Radiomic Analysis of Cohort-Specific Diagnostic Errors in Reading Dense Mammograms Using Artificial Intelligence.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Xuetong Tao, Ziba Gandomkar, Tong Li, Patrick C Brennan, Warren M Reed
{"title":"Radiomic Analysis of Cohort-Specific Diagnostic Errors in Reading Dense Mammograms Using Artificial Intelligence.","authors":"Xuetong Tao, Ziba Gandomkar, Tong Li, Patrick C Brennan, Warren M Reed","doi":"10.1093/bjr/tqae195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to investigate radiologists' interpretation errors when reading dense screening mammograms using a radiomics-based artificial intelligence approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-six radiologists from China and Australia read 60 dense mammograms. For each cohort, we identified normal areas that looked suspicious of cancer and the malignant areas containing cancers. Then radiomic features were extracted from these identified areas and random forest models were trained to recognize the areas that were most frequently linked to diagnostic errors within each cohort. The performance of the model and discriminatory power of significant radiomic features were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that in the Chinese cohort, the AUC values for predicting false positives were 0.864 (CC) and 0.829 (MLO), while in the Australian cohort, they were 0.652 (CC) and 0.747 (MLO). For false negatives, the AUC values in the Chinese cohort were 0.677 (CC) and 0.673 (MLO), and in the Australian cohort, they were 0.600 (CC) and 0.505 (MLO). In both cohorts, regions with higher Gabor and maximum response filter outputs were more prone to false positives, while areas with significant intensity changes and coarse textures were more likely to yield false negatives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This cohort-based pipeline proves effective in identifying common errors for specific reader cohorts based on image-derived radiomic features.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>This study demonstrates that radiomics-based AI can effectively identify and predict radiologists' interpretation errors in dense mammograms, with distinct radiomic features linked to false positives and false negatives in Chinese and Australian cohorts.</p>","PeriodicalId":9306,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae195","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to investigate radiologists' interpretation errors when reading dense screening mammograms using a radiomics-based artificial intelligence approach.

Methods: Thirty-six radiologists from China and Australia read 60 dense mammograms. For each cohort, we identified normal areas that looked suspicious of cancer and the malignant areas containing cancers. Then radiomic features were extracted from these identified areas and random forest models were trained to recognize the areas that were most frequently linked to diagnostic errors within each cohort. The performance of the model and discriminatory power of significant radiomic features were assessed.

Results: We found that in the Chinese cohort, the AUC values for predicting false positives were 0.864 (CC) and 0.829 (MLO), while in the Australian cohort, they were 0.652 (CC) and 0.747 (MLO). For false negatives, the AUC values in the Chinese cohort were 0.677 (CC) and 0.673 (MLO), and in the Australian cohort, they were 0.600 (CC) and 0.505 (MLO). In both cohorts, regions with higher Gabor and maximum response filter outputs were more prone to false positives, while areas with significant intensity changes and coarse textures were more likely to yield false negatives.

Conclusions: This cohort-based pipeline proves effective in identifying common errors for specific reader cohorts based on image-derived radiomic features.

Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrates that radiomics-based AI can effectively identify and predict radiologists' interpretation errors in dense mammograms, with distinct radiomic features linked to false positives and false negatives in Chinese and Australian cohorts.

利用人工智能对阅读致密乳腺 X 线照片时的特定组群诊断错误进行放射学分析。
研究目的本研究旨在利用基于放射组学的人工智能方法,调查放射科医生在阅读乳腺致密筛查X光片时的判读错误:来自中国和澳大利亚的 36 名放射科医生阅读了 60 张致密乳房 X 光照片。我们为每个队列确定了疑似癌症的正常区域和包含癌症的恶性区域。然后从这些确定的区域提取放射学特征,并训练随机森林模型来识别每个队列中最常出现诊断错误的区域。我们对模型的性能和重要放射学特征的判别能力进行了评估:我们发现,在中国队列中,预测假阳性的 AUC 值为 0.864(CC)和 0.829(MLO),而在澳大利亚队列中,预测假阴性的 AUC 值为 0.652(CC)和 0.747(MLO)。对于假阴性,中国队列的 AUC 值为 0.677(CC)和 0.673(MLO),澳大利亚队列的 AUC 值为 0.600(CC)和 0.505(MLO)。在这两个队列中,Gabor 和最大响应滤波器输出较高的区域更容易出现假阳性,而强度变化明显和纹理粗糙的区域更容易出现假阴性:结论:事实证明,这种基于队列的管道能有效识别基于图像衍生的放射组学特征的特定读者队列的常见错误:这项研究表明,基于放射组学的人工智能可以有效识别和预测放射医师在致密乳腺X光照片中的判读错误,在中国和澳大利亚队列中,不同的放射组学特征与假阳性和假阴性相关联。
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
British Journal of Radiology
British Journal of Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
330
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: BJR is the international research journal of the British Institute of Radiology and is the oldest scientific journal in the field of radiology and related sciences. Dating back to 1896, BJR’s history is radiology’s history, and the journal has featured some landmark papers such as the first description of Computed Tomography "Computerized transverse axial tomography" by Godfrey Hounsfield in 1973. A valuable historical resource, the complete BJR archive has been digitized from 1896. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor – 1.840 - Receipt to first decision – average of 6 weeks - Acceptance to online publication – average of 3 weeks - ISSN: 0007-1285 - eISSN: 1748-880X Open Access option
×
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