Implementing artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: Women’s preferences

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Pub Date : 2025-04-22 DOI:10.1002/cncr.35859
Alison Pearce BAppSci(OT), MPH, PhD, Stacy Carter BAppSci, MPH(Hons), PhD, Helen ML Frazer MBBS, RANZCR, M Epi Biostat, GAICD, Nehmat Houssami MBBS (Hons), MPH, M Ed, FAFPHM, FASBP, PhD, Mary Macheras-Magias, Genevieve Webb, M. Luke Marinovich BA(Hons), MPH, PhD
{"title":"Implementing artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: Women’s preferences","authors":"Alison Pearce BAppSci(OT), MPH, PhD,&nbsp;Stacy Carter BAppSci, MPH(Hons), PhD,&nbsp;Helen ML Frazer MBBS, RANZCR, M Epi Biostat, GAICD,&nbsp;Nehmat Houssami MBBS (Hons), MPH, M Ed, FAFPHM, FASBP, PhD,&nbsp;Mary Macheras-Magias,&nbsp;Genevieve Webb,&nbsp;M. Luke Marinovich BA(Hons), MPH, PhD","doi":"10.1002/cncr.35859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Artificial intelligence (AI) could improve accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening. However, many women distrust AI in health care, potentially jeopardizing breast cancer screening participation rates. The aim was to quantify community preferences for models of AI implementation within breast cancer screening.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An online discrete choice experiment survey of people eligible for breast cancer screening aged 40 to 74 years in Australia. Respondents answered 10 questions where they chose between two screening options created by an experimental design. Each screening option described the role of AI (supplementing current practice, replacing one radiologist, replacing both radiologists, or triaging), and the AI accuracy, ownership, representativeness, privacy, and waiting time. Analysis included conditional and latent class models, willingness-to-pay, and predicted screening uptake.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The 802 participants preferred screening where AI was more accurate, Australian owned, more representative and had shorter waiting time for results (all <i>p</i> &lt; .001). There were strong preferences (<i>p</i> &lt; .001) against AI alone or as triage. Three patterns of preferences emerged: positive about AI if accuracy improves (40% of sample), strongly against AI (42%), and concerned about AI (18%). Participants were willing to accept AI replacing one human reader if their results were available 10 days faster than current practice but would need results 21 days faster for AI as triage. Implementing AI inconsistent with community preferences could reduce participation by up to 22%.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":138,"journal":{"name":"Cancer","volume":"131 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cncr.35859","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.35859","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Artificial intelligence (AI) could improve accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening. However, many women distrust AI in health care, potentially jeopardizing breast cancer screening participation rates. The aim was to quantify community preferences for models of AI implementation within breast cancer screening.

Methods

An online discrete choice experiment survey of people eligible for breast cancer screening aged 40 to 74 years in Australia. Respondents answered 10 questions where they chose between two screening options created by an experimental design. Each screening option described the role of AI (supplementing current practice, replacing one radiologist, replacing both radiologists, or triaging), and the AI accuracy, ownership, representativeness, privacy, and waiting time. Analysis included conditional and latent class models, willingness-to-pay, and predicted screening uptake.

Results

The 802 participants preferred screening where AI was more accurate, Australian owned, more representative and had shorter waiting time for results (all p < .001). There were strong preferences (p < .001) against AI alone or as triage. Three patterns of preferences emerged: positive about AI if accuracy improves (40% of sample), strongly against AI (42%), and concerned about AI (18%). Participants were willing to accept AI replacing one human reader if their results were available 10 days faster than current practice but would need results 21 days faster for AI as triage. Implementing AI inconsistent with community preferences could reduce participation by up to 22%.

Abstract Image

在乳腺癌筛查中实施人工智能:女性的偏好
人工智能(AI)可以提高乳腺癌筛查的准确性和效率。然而,许多女性不信任医疗保健领域的人工智能,这可能会危及乳腺癌筛查的参与率。目的是量化社区对乳腺癌筛查中人工智能实施模型的偏好。方法对澳大利亚40 ~ 74岁符合乳腺癌筛查条件的人群进行在线离散选择实验调查。受访者回答了10个问题,在实验设计的两种筛选选项中进行选择。每个筛查选项都描述了人工智能的作用(补充当前实践,替换一名放射科医生,替换两名放射科医生,或分诊),以及人工智能的准确性、所有权、代表性、隐私性和等待时间。分析包括条件和潜在类别模型、支付意愿和预测筛查摄取。结果802名参与者更喜欢人工智能更准确、澳大利亚人拥有、更具代表性和等待结果时间更短的筛查(所有p <;措施)。有强烈的偏好(p <;.001)单独或作为分类。出现了三种偏好模式:如果准确性提高,对人工智能持积极态度(40%的样本),强烈反对人工智能(42%),关注人工智能(18%)。参与者愿意接受人工智能取代一名人类读者,如果他们的结果比目前的做法快10天,但人工智能需要更快21天的结果作为分流。实施与社区偏好不一致的人工智能可能会减少22%的参与度。
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
Cancer
Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
480
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The CANCER site is a full-text, electronic implementation of CANCER, an Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, and CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, a Journal of the American Cancer Society. CANCER publishes interdisciplinary oncologic information according to, but not limited to, the following disease sites and disciplines: blood/bone marrow; breast disease; endocrine disorders; epidemiology; gastrointestinal tract; genitourinary disease; gynecologic oncology; head and neck disease; hepatobiliary tract; integrated medicine; lung disease; medical oncology; neuro-oncology; pathology radiation oncology; translational research
×
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