Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms
409
Zitationen
73
Autoren
2020
Jahr
Abstract
Importance: Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. Objective: To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measurements: Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated. Results: Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance: While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis
2017 · 13.876 Zit.
pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves
2011 · 13.746 Zit.
Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks
2017 · 13.436 Zit.
A survey on Image Data Augmentation for Deep Learning
2019 · 12.025 Zit.
QuPath: Open source software for digital pathology image analysis
2017 · 8.373 Zit.
Autoren
- Thomas Schaffter
- Diana S.M. Buist
- Christoph I. Lee
- Yaroslav Nikulin
- Dezső Ribli
- Yuanfang Guan
- William Lotter
- Zequn Jie
- Hao Du
- Sijia Wang
- Jiashi Feng
- Mengling Feng
- Hyoeun Kim
- F. Albiol
- Alberto Albiol
- Stephen Morrell
- Zbigniew Wojna
- Mehmet Eren Ahsen
- Umar Asif
- Antonio Jimeno Yepes
- Shivanthan A.C. Yohanandan
- Simona Rabinovici‐Cohen
- Darvin Yi
- Bruce Hoff
- Thomas Yu
- Elias Chaibub Neto
- Daniel L. Rubin
- Peter Lindholm
- Laurie R. Margolies
- Russell B. McBride
- Joseph H. Rothstein
- Weiva Sieh
- Rami Ben‐Ari
- Stefan Harrer
- Andrew D. Trister
- Stephen Friend
- Thea Norman
- Berkman Sahiner
- Fredrik Strand
- Justin Guinney
- Gustavo Stolovitzky
- Lester Mackey
- Joyce Cahoon
- Li Shen
- Jae Ho Sohn
- Hari Trivedi
- Yiqiu Shen
- Ljubomir Buturović
- José Costa Pereira
- Jaime S. Cardoso
- Eduardo Castro
- Karl Trygve Kalleberg
- Obioma Pelka
- Imane Nedjar
- Krzysztof J. Geras
- Felix Nensa
- Ethan Goan
- Sven Koitka
- L. Caballero
- David Cox
- Pavitra Krishnaswamy
- Gaurav Pandey
- Christoph M. Friedrich
- Dimitri Perrin
- Clinton Fookes
- Bibo Shi
- Gerard Cardoso Negrie
- Michael Kawczynski
- Kyunghyun Cho
- Can Son Khoo
- Joseph Y. Lo
- A. Gregory Sorensen
- Hwejin Jung
Institutionen
- Sage Bionetworks(US)
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute(US)
- University of Washington(US)
- Eötvös Loránd University(HU)
- Michigan Medicine(US)
- Tencent (China)(CN)
- National University of Singapore(SG)
- Agency for Integrated Care(SG)
- National University Health System(SG)
- Instituto de Física Corpuscular(ES)
- Universitat de València(ES)
- Universitat Politècnica de València(ES)
- University College London(GB)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign(US)
- IBM Research - Australia(AU)
- University of Haifa(IL)
- IBM Research - Haifa(IL)
- Stanford University(US)
- Karolinska Institutet(SE)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai(US)
- Fred Hutch Cancer Center(US)
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation(US)
- Center for Devices and Radiological Health(US)
- Karolinska University Hospital(SE)
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center(US)
- Microsoft (United States)(US)
- New England Research (United States)(US)
- North Carolina State University(US)
- University of California, San Francisco(US)
- Emory University(US)
- New York University(US)
- Palo Alto Institute(US)
- INESC TEC(PT)
- Essen University Hospital(DE)
- Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts(DE)
- University of Abou Bekr Belkaïd(DZ)
- Queensland University of Technology(AU)
- IBM (United States)(US)
- Agency for Science, Technology and Research(SG)
- Institute for Infocomm Research(SG)
- Center for Information Technology(US)
- Duke University(US)
- Advanced Imaging Research (United States)(US)
- Korea University(KR)