Abstract SY01-03: The gold standard cancer diagnosis: Studies of physician variability, interpretive behavior, and the impact of AI

J. Elmore
{"title":"Abstract SY01-03: The gold standard cancer diagnosis: Studies of physician variability, interpretive behavior, and the impact of AI","authors":"J. Elmore","doi":"10.1158/1538-7445.AM2021-SY01-03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current gold standard for cancer diagnoses is based on pathologists9 visual inspection of tissue sections. However, our research has found concerning levels of inter-observer and intra-observer variability among pathologists. Our prior work in melanoma shows that current diagnoses within the disease spectrum from benign nevi to melanoma in situ to invasive melanoma are neither reproducible nor accurate, yielding estimates that ~17% of all diagnoses for melanocytic lesions in the US are incorrect (Elmore et al. BMJ 2017). A study conducted by our team in breast pathology quantified the magnitude of diagnostic agreement among pathologists compared with a gold standard consensus reference: among DCIS cases, 16% of interpretations were discordant, while among atypia cases 52% of interpretations were discordant (Elmore et al. JAMA 2015). While computer systems, such as computer aided detection (CAD) tools, have been widely integrated into clinical practice to aid the interpretative and diagnostic process, our work has also found that the use of CAD can be associated with increases in potential harms, including higher recall and biopsy rates for screening mammography (Fenton et al. NEJM 2007). Given the critical need to improve the quality of our current diagnostic and prognostic capabilities, our multidisciplinary research team is conducting several studies that involve the development and integration of AI/machine learning and eye-tracking across clinical contexts. The challenges and implications associated with “gold standard” definitions for diagnoses, with data sharing infrastructure and with the eventual impact of AI on the human interface will be discussed. Citation Format: Joann Elmore. The gold standard cancer diagnosis: Studies of physician variability, interpretive behavior, and the impact of AI [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr SY01-03.","PeriodicalId":73617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of bioinformatics and systems biology : Open access","volume":"125 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of bioinformatics and systems biology : Open access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2021-SY01-03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The current gold standard for cancer diagnoses is based on pathologists9 visual inspection of tissue sections. However, our research has found concerning levels of inter-observer and intra-observer variability among pathologists. Our prior work in melanoma shows that current diagnoses within the disease spectrum from benign nevi to melanoma in situ to invasive melanoma are neither reproducible nor accurate, yielding estimates that ~17% of all diagnoses for melanocytic lesions in the US are incorrect (Elmore et al. BMJ 2017). A study conducted by our team in breast pathology quantified the magnitude of diagnostic agreement among pathologists compared with a gold standard consensus reference: among DCIS cases, 16% of interpretations were discordant, while among atypia cases 52% of interpretations were discordant (Elmore et al. JAMA 2015). While computer systems, such as computer aided detection (CAD) tools, have been widely integrated into clinical practice to aid the interpretative and diagnostic process, our work has also found that the use of CAD can be associated with increases in potential harms, including higher recall and biopsy rates for screening mammography (Fenton et al. NEJM 2007). Given the critical need to improve the quality of our current diagnostic and prognostic capabilities, our multidisciplinary research team is conducting several studies that involve the development and integration of AI/machine learning and eye-tracking across clinical contexts. The challenges and implications associated with “gold standard” definitions for diagnoses, with data sharing infrastructure and with the eventual impact of AI on the human interface will be discussed. Citation Format: Joann Elmore. The gold standard cancer diagnosis: Studies of physician variability, interpretive behavior, and the impact of AI [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr SY01-03.
摘要:癌症诊断的金标准:医生变异性、解释行为和人工智能影响的研究
目前癌症诊断的金标准是基于病理学家对组织切片的目视检查。然而,我们的研究发现病理学家之间存在观察者之间和观察者内部的差异。我们之前在黑色素瘤方面的工作表明,目前从良性黑色素瘤到原位黑色素瘤到侵袭性黑色素瘤的疾病谱系中的诊断既不可重复也不准确,估计在美国约有17%的黑色素细胞病变诊断是不正确的(Elmore等人)。BMJ 2017)。我们团队在乳腺病理学方面进行的一项研究量化了病理学家与金标准共识参考的诊断一致性程度:在DCIS病例中,16%的解释不一致,而在非典型病例中,52%的解释不一致(Elmore等人)。《美国医学会杂志》2015年)。虽然计算机系统,如计算机辅助检测(CAD)工具,已经广泛地整合到临床实践中,以帮助解释和诊断过程,但我们的工作也发现,CAD的使用可能与潜在危害的增加有关,包括筛查乳房x光检查的更高召回率和活检率(Fenton等)。NEJM 2007)。鉴于迫切需要提高我们当前诊断和预后能力的质量,我们的多学科研究团队正在开展几项研究,涉及在临床环境中开发和整合人工智能/机器学习和眼动追踪。将讨论与诊断的“黄金标准”定义、数据共享基础设施以及人工智能对人机界面的最终影响相关的挑战和影响。引用格式:Joann Elmore。癌症诊断的金标准:医生变异性、解释行为和人工智能影响的研究[摘要]。见:美国癌症研究协会2021年年会论文集;2021年4月10日至15日和5月17日至21日。费城(PA): AACR;癌症杂志,2021;81(13 -增刊):SY01-03。
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