在真实世界乳腺 X 射线筛查中,有人工智能辅助和无人工智能辅助的诊断性能

IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Si Eun Lee , Hanpyo Hong , Eun-Kyung Kim
{"title":"在真实世界乳腺 X 射线筛查中,有人工智能辅助和无人工智能辅助的诊断性能","authors":"Si Eun Lee ,&nbsp;Hanpyo Hong ,&nbsp;Eun-Kyung Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiologists by providing and withholding AI-CAD results alternatively every month.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board with a waiver for informed consent. Between August 2020 and May 2022, 1819 consecutive women (mean age 50.8 ± 9.4 years) with 2061 screening mammography and ultrasound performed on the same day in a single institution were included. Radiologists interpreted screening mammography in clinical practice with AI-CAD results being provided or withheld alternatively by month. The AI-CAD results were retrospectively obtained for analysis even when withheld from radiologists. The diagnostic performances of radiologists and stand-alone AI-CAD were compared and the performances of radiologists with and without AI-CAD assistance were also compared by cancer detection rate, recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-nine breast cancer patients and 1790 women without cancers were included. Diagnostic performances of the radiologists did not significantly differ with and without AI-CAD assistance. Radiologists with AI-CAD assistance showed the same sensitivity (76.5%) and similar specificity (92.3% vs 93.8%), AUC (0.844 vs 0.851), and recall rates (8.8% vs. 7.4%) compared to standalone AI-CAD. Radiologists without AI-CAD assistance showed lower specificity (91.9% vs 94.6%) and accuracy (91.5% vs 94.1%) and higher recall rates (8.6% vs 5.9%, all p &lt; 0.05) compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Radiologists showed no significant difference in diagnostic performance when both screening mammography and ultrasound were performed with or without AI-CAD assistance for mammography. However, without AI-CAD assistance, radiologists showed lower specificity and accuracy and higher recall rates compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047723000710/pdfft?md5=c846cac93a8f564a2b410650560d00bd&pid=1-s2.0-S2352047723000710-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic performance with and without artificial intelligence assistance in real-world screening mammography\",\"authors\":\"Si Eun Lee ,&nbsp;Hanpyo Hong ,&nbsp;Eun-Kyung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiologists by providing and withholding AI-CAD results alternatively every month.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board with a waiver for informed consent. Between August 2020 and May 2022, 1819 consecutive women (mean age 50.8 ± 9.4 years) with 2061 screening mammography and ultrasound performed on the same day in a single institution were included. Radiologists interpreted screening mammography in clinical practice with AI-CAD results being provided or withheld alternatively by month. The AI-CAD results were retrospectively obtained for analysis even when withheld from radiologists. The diagnostic performances of radiologists and stand-alone AI-CAD were compared and the performances of radiologists with and without AI-CAD assistance were also compared by cancer detection rate, recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-nine breast cancer patients and 1790 women without cancers were included. Diagnostic performances of the radiologists did not significantly differ with and without AI-CAD assistance. Radiologists with AI-CAD assistance showed the same sensitivity (76.5%) and similar specificity (92.3% vs 93.8%), AUC (0.844 vs 0.851), and recall rates (8.8% vs. 7.4%) compared to standalone AI-CAD. Radiologists without AI-CAD assistance showed lower specificity (91.9% vs 94.6%) and accuracy (91.5% vs 94.1%) and higher recall rates (8.6% vs 5.9%, all p &lt; 0.05) compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Radiologists showed no significant difference in diagnostic performance when both screening mammography and ultrasound were performed with or without AI-CAD assistance for mammography. However, without AI-CAD assistance, radiologists showed lower specificity and accuracy and higher recall rates compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Radiology Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047723000710/pdfft?md5=c846cac93a8f564a2b410650560d00bd&pid=1-s2.0-S2352047723000710-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Radiology Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047723000710\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047723000710","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

摘要

目的为了评估基于人工智能的计算机辅助诊断(AI-CAD)在乳腺X光筛查中的应用,我们分析了放射科医生每月交替提供和不提供 AI-CAD 结果的诊断表现。研究纳入了 2020 年 8 月至 2022 年 5 月期间,在一家机构连续接受了 2061 次乳腺 X 线照相术和超声波检查的 1819 名女性(平均年龄为 50.8 ± 9.4 岁)。放射科医生在临床实践中对乳腺X光筛查进行解释,按月提供或不提供 AI-CAD 结果。即使放射科医生不提供 AI-CAD 结果,也会通过回顾性方式获取 AI-CAD 结果进行分析。通过癌症检出率、召回率、灵敏度、特异性、准确性和接收者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC),比较了放射科医生和独立 AI-CAD 的诊断表现,以及有 AI-CAD 辅助和无 AI-CAD 辅助的放射科医生的表现。在有 AI-CAD 辅助和没有 AI-CAD 辅助的情况下,放射科医生的诊断表现没有明显差异。与独立的 AI-CAD 相比,有 AI-CAD 辅助的放射科医生显示出相同的灵敏度(76.5%)和相似的特异性(92.3% 对 93.8%)、AUC(0.844 对 0.851)和召回率(8.8% 对 7.4%)。与独立的 AI-CAD 相比,没有 AI-CAD 辅助的放射科医生的特异性(91.9% vs 94.6%)和准确性(91.5% vs 94.1%)较低,召回率(8.6% vs 5.9%,所有 p < 0.05)较高。但是,与独立的 AI-CAD 相比,在没有 AI-CAD 辅助的情况下,放射医师的特异性和准确性较低,召回率较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic performance with and without artificial intelligence assistance in real-world screening mammography

Purpose

To evaluate artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiologists by providing and withholding AI-CAD results alternatively every month.

Methods

This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board with a waiver for informed consent. Between August 2020 and May 2022, 1819 consecutive women (mean age 50.8 ± 9.4 years) with 2061 screening mammography and ultrasound performed on the same day in a single institution were included. Radiologists interpreted screening mammography in clinical practice with AI-CAD results being provided or withheld alternatively by month. The AI-CAD results were retrospectively obtained for analysis even when withheld from radiologists. The diagnostic performances of radiologists and stand-alone AI-CAD were compared and the performances of radiologists with and without AI-CAD assistance were also compared by cancer detection rate, recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC).

Results

Twenty-nine breast cancer patients and 1790 women without cancers were included. Diagnostic performances of the radiologists did not significantly differ with and without AI-CAD assistance. Radiologists with AI-CAD assistance showed the same sensitivity (76.5%) and similar specificity (92.3% vs 93.8%), AUC (0.844 vs 0.851), and recall rates (8.8% vs. 7.4%) compared to standalone AI-CAD. Radiologists without AI-CAD assistance showed lower specificity (91.9% vs 94.6%) and accuracy (91.5% vs 94.1%) and higher recall rates (8.6% vs 5.9%, all p < 0.05) compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.

Conclusion

Radiologists showed no significant difference in diagnostic performance when both screening mammography and ultrasound were performed with or without AI-CAD assistance for mammography. However, without AI-CAD assistance, radiologists showed lower specificity and accuracy and higher recall rates compared to stand-alone AI-CAD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
×
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