基于人工智能的计算机辅助检测/诊断(AI-CAD)用于筛查乳房X光检查:AI-CAD在乳腺X光检查解释工作流程中的结果

IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Jung Hyun Yoon , Kyungwha Han , Hee Jung Suh , Ji Hyun Youk , Si Eun Lee , Eun-Kyung Kim
{"title":"基于人工智能的计算机辅助检测/诊断(AI-CAD)用于筛查乳房X光检查:AI-CAD在乳腺X光检查解释工作流程中的结果","authors":"Jung Hyun Yoon ,&nbsp;Kyungwha Han ,&nbsp;Hee Jung Suh ,&nbsp;Ji Hyun Youk ,&nbsp;Si Eun Lee ,&nbsp;Eun-Kyung Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate the stand-alone diagnostic performances of AI-CAD and outcomes of AI-CAD detected abnormalities when applied to the mammographic interpretation workflow.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From January 2016 to December 2017, 6499 screening mammograms of 5228 women were collected from a single screening facility. Historic reads of three radiologists were used as radiologist interpretation. A commercially-available AI-CAD was used for analysis. One radiologist not involved in interpretation had retrospectively reviewed the abnormality features and assessed the significance (negligible vs. need recall) of the AI-CAD marks. Ground truth in terms of cancer, benign or absence of abnormality was confirmed according to histopathologic diagnosis or negative results on the next-round screen.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 6499 mammograms, 6282 (96.7%) were in the negative, 189 (2.9%) were in the benign, and 28 (0.4%) were in the cancer group. AI-CAD detected 5 (17.9%, 5 of 28) of the 9 cancers that were intially interpreted as negative. Of the 648 AI-CAD recalls, 89.0% (577 of 648) were marks seen on examinations in the negative group, and 267 (41.2%) of the AI-CAD marks were considered to be negligible. Stand-alone AI-CAD has significantly higher recall rates (10.0% vs. 3.4%, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) with comparable sensitivity and cancer detection rates (<em>P</em> = 0.086 and 0.102, respectively) when compared to the radiologists’ interpretation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>AI-CAD detected 17.9% additional cancers on screening mammography that were initially overlooked by the radiologists. In spite of the additional cancer detection, AI-CAD had significantly higher recall rates in the clinical workflow, in which 89.0% of AI-CAD marks are on negative mammograms.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3e/55/main.PMC10362167.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted detection/diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: Outcomes of AI-CAD in the mammographic interpretation workflow\",\"authors\":\"Jung Hyun Yoon ,&nbsp;Kyungwha Han ,&nbsp;Hee Jung Suh ,&nbsp;Ji Hyun Youk ,&nbsp;Si Eun Lee ,&nbsp;Eun-Kyung Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100509\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To evaluate the stand-alone diagnostic performances of AI-CAD and outcomes of AI-CAD detected abnormalities when applied to the mammographic interpretation workflow.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>From January 2016 to December 2017, 6499 screening mammograms of 5228 women were collected from a single screening facility. Historic reads of three radiologists were used as radiologist interpretation. A commercially-available AI-CAD was used for analysis. One radiologist not involved in interpretation had retrospectively reviewed the abnormality features and assessed the significance (negligible vs. need recall) of the AI-CAD marks. Ground truth in terms of cancer, benign or absence of abnormality was confirmed according to histopathologic diagnosis or negative results on the next-round screen.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 6499 mammograms, 6282 (96.7%) were in the negative, 189 (2.9%) were in the benign, and 28 (0.4%) were in the cancer group. AI-CAD detected 5 (17.9%, 5 of 28) of the 9 cancers that were intially interpreted as negative. Of the 648 AI-CAD recalls, 89.0% (577 of 648) were marks seen on examinations in the negative group, and 267 (41.2%) of the AI-CAD marks were considered to be negligible. Stand-alone AI-CAD has significantly higher recall rates (10.0% vs. 3.4%, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) with comparable sensitivity and cancer detection rates (<em>P</em> = 0.086 and 0.102, respectively) when compared to the radiologists’ interpretation.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>AI-CAD detected 17.9% additional cancers on screening mammography that were initially overlooked by the radiologists. In spite of the additional cancer detection, AI-CAD had significantly higher recall rates in the clinical workflow, in which 89.0% of AI-CAD marks are on negative mammograms.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Radiology Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3e/55/main.PMC10362167.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/S2352047723000357\",\"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/S2352047723000357","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

目的评估AI-CAD的独立诊断性能和AI-CAD检测异常的结果,并将其应用于乳腺摄影解释工作流程。方法从2016年1月至2017年12月,从一个筛查机构收集5228名女性的6499张筛查乳房X光片。三位放射科医生的历史读数被用作放射科医生解释。使用市售的AI-CAD进行分析。一位未参与解释的放射科医生回顾性审查了异常特征,并评估了AI-CAD标记的重要性(可忽略不计与需要回忆)。根据组织病理学诊断或下一轮筛查的阴性结果,癌症确诊为良性或无异常。结果6499例乳腺X线片中,6282例(96.7%)为阴性,189例(2.9%)为良性,28例(0.4%)为癌症组。在最初被解释为阴性的9种癌症中,AI-CAD检测到5种(17.9%,28种癌症中的5种)。在648次AI-CAD召回中,89.0%(648次中的577次)是阴性组检查中发现的标记,267次(41.2%)的AI-CAD标记被认为可以忽略不计。与放射科医生的解释相比,独立AI-CAD具有显著更高的召回率(10.0%对3.4%,P<;0.001),具有可比的灵敏度和癌症检测率(分别P=0.086和0.102)。结论AI CAD在筛查乳腺X线片中发现了17.9%的额外癌症,这些癌症最初被放射科医生忽视。尽管有额外的癌症检测,AI-CAD在临床工作流程中的召回率显著较高,其中89.0%的AI-CAD标记在阴性乳房X光片上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted detection/diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: Outcomes of AI-CAD in the mammographic interpretation workflow

Artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted detection/diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: Outcomes of AI-CAD in the mammographic interpretation workflow

Artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted detection/diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: Outcomes of AI-CAD in the mammographic interpretation workflow

Artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted detection/diagnosis (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: Outcomes of AI-CAD in the mammographic interpretation workflow

Purpose

To evaluate the stand-alone diagnostic performances of AI-CAD and outcomes of AI-CAD detected abnormalities when applied to the mammographic interpretation workflow.

Methods

From January 2016 to December 2017, 6499 screening mammograms of 5228 women were collected from a single screening facility. Historic reads of three radiologists were used as radiologist interpretation. A commercially-available AI-CAD was used for analysis. One radiologist not involved in interpretation had retrospectively reviewed the abnormality features and assessed the significance (negligible vs. need recall) of the AI-CAD marks. Ground truth in terms of cancer, benign or absence of abnormality was confirmed according to histopathologic diagnosis or negative results on the next-round screen.

Results

Of the 6499 mammograms, 6282 (96.7%) were in the negative, 189 (2.9%) were in the benign, and 28 (0.4%) were in the cancer group. AI-CAD detected 5 (17.9%, 5 of 28) of the 9 cancers that were intially interpreted as negative. Of the 648 AI-CAD recalls, 89.0% (577 of 648) were marks seen on examinations in the negative group, and 267 (41.2%) of the AI-CAD marks were considered to be negligible. Stand-alone AI-CAD has significantly higher recall rates (10.0% vs. 3.4%, P < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity and cancer detection rates (P = 0.086 and 0.102, respectively) when compared to the radiologists’ interpretation.

Conclusion

AI-CAD detected 17.9% additional cancers on screening mammography that were initially overlooked by the radiologists. In spite of the additional cancer detection, AI-CAD had significantly higher recall rates in the clinical workflow, in which 89.0% of AI-CAD marks are on negative mammograms.

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