患者对人工智能在乳房x光筛查解释中的应用的感知:一项调查研究。

IF 5.6 Q1 ONCOLOGY
B Bersu Ozcan, Basak E Dogan, Yin Xi, Emily E Knippa
{"title":"患者对人工智能在乳房x光筛查解释中的应用的感知:一项调查研究。","authors":"B Bersu Ozcan, Basak E Dogan, Yin Xi, Emily E Knippa","doi":"10.1148/rycan.240290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To assess patient perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) use in the interpretation of screening mammograms. Materials and Methods In a prospective, institutional review board-approved study, all patients undergoing mammography screening at the authors' institution between February 2023 and August 2023 were offered a 29-question survey. Age, race and ethnicity, education, income level, and history of breast cancer and biopsy were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent factors associated with participants' acceptance of AI use. Results Of the 518 participants, the majority were between the ages of 40 and 69 years (377 of 518, 72.8%), at least college graduates (347 of 518, 67.0%), and non-Hispanic White (262 of 518, 50.6%). Participant-reported knowledge of AI was none or minimal in 76.5% (396 of 518). Stand-alone AI interpretation was accepted by 4.44% (23 of 518), whereas 71.0% (368 of 518) preferred AI to be used as a second reader. After an AI-reported abnormal screening, 88.9% (319 of 359) requested radiologist review versus 51.3% (184 of 359) of radiologist recall review by AI (<i>P</i> < .001). In cases of discrepancy, higher rate of participants would undergo diagnostic examination for radiologist recalls compared with AI recalls (94.2% [419 of 445] vs 92.6% [412 of 445]; <i>P</i> = .20]. Higher education was associated with higher AI acceptance (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% CI: 1.31, 3.20; <i>P</i> = .002). Race was associated with higher concern for bias in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White participants (OR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.15, 9.61; <i>P</i> = .005) and non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White participants (OR 4.31, 95% CI: 1.50, 12.39; <i>P</i> = .005). Conclusion AI use as a second reader of screening mammograms was accepted by participants. Participants' race and education level were significantly associated with AI acceptance. <b>Keywords:</b> Breast, Mammography, Artificial Intelligence <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 3","pages":"e240290"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130716/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Perception of Artificial Intelligence Use in Interpretation of Screening Mammograms: A Survey Study.\",\"authors\":\"B Bersu Ozcan, Basak E Dogan, Yin Xi, Emily E Knippa\",\"doi\":\"10.1148/rycan.240290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Purpose To assess patient perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) use in the interpretation of screening mammograms. Materials and Methods In a prospective, institutional review board-approved study, all patients undergoing mammography screening at the authors' institution between February 2023 and August 2023 were offered a 29-question survey. Age, race and ethnicity, education, income level, and history of breast cancer and biopsy were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent factors associated with participants' acceptance of AI use. Results Of the 518 participants, the majority were between the ages of 40 and 69 years (377 of 518, 72.8%), at least college graduates (347 of 518, 67.0%), and non-Hispanic White (262 of 518, 50.6%). Participant-reported knowledge of AI was none or minimal in 76.5% (396 of 518). Stand-alone AI interpretation was accepted by 4.44% (23 of 518), whereas 71.0% (368 of 518) preferred AI to be used as a second reader. After an AI-reported abnormal screening, 88.9% (319 of 359) requested radiologist review versus 51.3% (184 of 359) of radiologist recall review by AI (<i>P</i> < .001). In cases of discrepancy, higher rate of participants would undergo diagnostic examination for radiologist recalls compared with AI recalls (94.2% [419 of 445] vs 92.6% [412 of 445]; <i>P</i> = .20]. Higher education was associated with higher AI acceptance (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% CI: 1.31, 3.20; <i>P</i> = .002). Race was associated with higher concern for bias in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White participants (OR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.15, 9.61; <i>P</i> = .005) and non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White participants (OR 4.31, 95% CI: 1.50, 12.39; <i>P</i> = .005). Conclusion AI use as a second reader of screening mammograms was accepted by participants. Participants' race and education level were significantly associated with AI acceptance. <b>Keywords:</b> Breast, Mammography, Artificial Intelligence <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiology. Imaging cancer\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"e240290\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130716/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiology. Imaging cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.240290\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.240290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估患者对人工智能(AI)用于乳房x线筛查解释的看法。材料和方法在一项机构审查委员会批准的前瞻性研究中,2023年2月至2023年8月期间在作者所在机构接受乳房x光检查的所有患者接受了29个问题的调查。收集年龄、种族和民族、教育程度、收入水平、乳腺癌病史和活检。使用单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析来确定与参与者接受人工智能使用相关的独立因素。在518名参与者中,大多数年龄在40至69岁之间(518人中有377人,72.8%),至少是大学毕业生(518人中有347人,67.0%),非西班牙裔白人(518人中有262人,50.6%)。76.5%的参与者(518人中有396人)报告对人工智能一无所知或知之甚少。4.44%(518人中的23人)接受了独立的人工智能解释,而71.0%(518人中的368人)更喜欢将人工智能用作第二阅读器。在人工智能报告异常筛查后,88.9%(359人中有319人)要求放射科医生审查,而51.3%(359人中有184人)要求人工智能进行放射科医生召回审查(P < 0.001)。在不一致的情况下,与人工智能召回相比,参与者接受放射科医生召回诊断检查的比例更高(94.2% [419 / 445]vs 92.6% [412 / 445];P = .20]。高等教育与较高的人工智能接受度相关(优势比[OR] 2.05, 95% CI: 1.31, 3.20;P = .002)。在西班牙裔和非西班牙裔白人受试者中,种族与更高的偏见担忧相关(OR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.15, 9.61;P = 0.005)和非西班牙裔黑人与非西班牙裔白人受试者(OR 4.31, 95% CI: 1.50, 12.39;P = .005)。结论人工智能作为乳房x线筛查的第二阅读器被参与者接受。参与者的种族和教育水平与人工智能接受程度显著相关。关键词:乳腺,乳房x光检查,人工智能本文有补充资料。在CC BY 4.0许可下发布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient Perception of Artificial Intelligence Use in Interpretation of Screening Mammograms: A Survey Study.

Purpose To assess patient perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) use in the interpretation of screening mammograms. Materials and Methods In a prospective, institutional review board-approved study, all patients undergoing mammography screening at the authors' institution between February 2023 and August 2023 were offered a 29-question survey. Age, race and ethnicity, education, income level, and history of breast cancer and biopsy were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent factors associated with participants' acceptance of AI use. Results Of the 518 participants, the majority were between the ages of 40 and 69 years (377 of 518, 72.8%), at least college graduates (347 of 518, 67.0%), and non-Hispanic White (262 of 518, 50.6%). Participant-reported knowledge of AI was none or minimal in 76.5% (396 of 518). Stand-alone AI interpretation was accepted by 4.44% (23 of 518), whereas 71.0% (368 of 518) preferred AI to be used as a second reader. After an AI-reported abnormal screening, 88.9% (319 of 359) requested radiologist review versus 51.3% (184 of 359) of radiologist recall review by AI (P < .001). In cases of discrepancy, higher rate of participants would undergo diagnostic examination for radiologist recalls compared with AI recalls (94.2% [419 of 445] vs 92.6% [412 of 445]; P = .20]. Higher education was associated with higher AI acceptance (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% CI: 1.31, 3.20; P = .002). Race was associated with higher concern for bias in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White participants (OR 3.32, 95% CI: 1.15, 9.61; P = .005) and non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White participants (OR 4.31, 95% CI: 1.50, 12.39; P = .005). Conclusion AI use as a second reader of screening mammograms was accepted by participants. Participants' race and education level were significantly associated with AI acceptance. Keywords: Breast, Mammography, Artificial Intelligence Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

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
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
2.30%
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信