一个分数就够了吗?人工智能严重性评分的陷阱和解决方案。

IF 3.7 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Michael H Bernstein, Marly van Assen, Michael A Bruno, Elizabeth A Krupinski, Carlo De Cecco, Grayson L Baird
{"title":"一个分数就够了吗?人工智能严重性评分的陷阱和解决方案。","authors":"Michael H Bernstein, Marly van Assen, Michael A Bruno, Elizabeth A Krupinski, Carlo De Cecco, Grayson L Baird","doi":"10.1186/s41747-025-00603-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Severity scores, which often refer to the likelihood or probability of a pathology, are commonly provided by artificial intelligence (AI) tools in radiology. However, little attention has been given to the use of these AI scores, and there is a lack of transparency into how they are generated. In this comment, we draw on key principles from psychological science and statistics to elucidate six human factors limitations of AI scores that undermine their utility: (1) variability across AI systems; (2) variability within AI systems; (3) variability between radiologists; (4) variability within radiologists; (5) unknown distribution of AI scores; and (6) perceptual challenges. We hypothesize that these limitations can be mitigated by providing the false discovery rate and false omission rate for each score as a threshold. We discuss how this hypothesis could be empirically tested. KEY POINTS: The radiologist-AI interaction has not been given sufficient attention. The utility of AI scores is limited by six key human factors limitations. We propose a hypothesis for how to mitigate these limitations by using false discovery rate and false omission rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":36926,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology Experimental","volume":"9 1","pages":"67"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259500/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is a score enough? Pitfalls and solutions for AI severity scores.\",\"authors\":\"Michael H Bernstein, Marly van Assen, Michael A Bruno, Elizabeth A Krupinski, Carlo De Cecco, Grayson L Baird\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41747-025-00603-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Severity scores, which often refer to the likelihood or probability of a pathology, are commonly provided by artificial intelligence (AI) tools in radiology. However, little attention has been given to the use of these AI scores, and there is a lack of transparency into how they are generated. In this comment, we draw on key principles from psychological science and statistics to elucidate six human factors limitations of AI scores that undermine their utility: (1) variability across AI systems; (2) variability within AI systems; (3) variability between radiologists; (4) variability within radiologists; (5) unknown distribution of AI scores; and (6) perceptual challenges. We hypothesize that these limitations can be mitigated by providing the false discovery rate and false omission rate for each score as a threshold. We discuss how this hypothesis could be empirically tested. KEY POINTS: The radiologist-AI interaction has not been given sufficient attention. The utility of AI scores is limited by six key human factors limitations. We propose a hypothesis for how to mitigate these limitations by using false discovery rate and false omission rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology Experimental\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"67\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259500/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology Experimental\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-025-00603-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology Experimental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-025-00603-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

严重性评分通常是指病理的可能性或概率,通常由放射学中的人工智能(AI)工具提供。然而,很少有人关注这些AI分数的使用,而且它们是如何生成的也缺乏透明度。在这篇评论中,我们利用心理科学和统计学的关键原则来阐明人工智能分数的六个人为因素限制,这些限制破坏了它们的效用:(1)人工智能系统之间的可变性;(2)人工智能系统内部的可变性;(3)放射科医师之间的差异;(4)放射科医生内部的变异性;(5) AI分数分布未知;(6)感知挑战。我们假设可以通过为每个分数提供错误发现率和错误遗漏率作为阈值来减轻这些限制。我们将讨论如何对这一假设进行实证检验。重点:放射科医生与人工智能的互动没有得到足够的重视。人工智能分数的效用受到6个关键人为因素的限制。我们提出了一个假设,通过使用错误发现率和错误遗漏率来缓解这些限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is a score enough? Pitfalls and solutions for AI severity scores.

Severity scores, which often refer to the likelihood or probability of a pathology, are commonly provided by artificial intelligence (AI) tools in radiology. However, little attention has been given to the use of these AI scores, and there is a lack of transparency into how they are generated. In this comment, we draw on key principles from psychological science and statistics to elucidate six human factors limitations of AI scores that undermine their utility: (1) variability across AI systems; (2) variability within AI systems; (3) variability between radiologists; (4) variability within radiologists; (5) unknown distribution of AI scores; and (6) perceptual challenges. We hypothesize that these limitations can be mitigated by providing the false discovery rate and false omission rate for each score as a threshold. We discuss how this hypothesis could be empirically tested. KEY POINTS: The radiologist-AI interaction has not been given sufficient attention. The utility of AI scores is limited by six key human factors limitations. We propose a hypothesis for how to mitigate these limitations by using false discovery rate and false omission rate.

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 Radiology Experimental
European Radiology Experimental Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
56
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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