Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms

The efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) in detecting interval cancers in the national screening program of a middle-income country

AIM

We aimed to investigate the efficiency and accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for detecting interval cancers in a middle-income country's national screening program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 2,129,486 mammograms reported as BIRADS 1 and 2 were matched with the national cancer registry for interval cancers (IC). The IC group consisted of 442 cases, of which 36 were excluded due to having mammograms incompatible with the AI system. A control group of 446 women with two negative consequent mammograms was defined as time-proven normal and constituted the normal group. The cancer risk scores of both groups were determined from 1 to 10 with the AI system. The sensitivity and specificity values of the AI system were defined in terms of IC detection. The IC group was divided into subgroups with six-month intervals according to their time from screening to diagnosis: 0-6 months, 6-12 months, 12-18 months, and 18-24 months. The diagnostic performance of the AI system for all patients was evaluated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis. The diagnostic performance of the AI system for major and minor findings that expert readers determined was re-evaluated.

RESULTS

AI labeled 53% of ICs with the highest score of 10. The sensitivity of AI in detecting ICs was 53.7% and 38.5% at specificities of 90% and 95%, respectively. Area under the curve (AUC) of AI in detecting major signs was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95) with a sensitivity of 81.6% and 72.4% at specificities of 90% and 95%, respectively (95% CI: 0.73-0.88 and 95% CI: 0.60-0.82 respectively) and minor signs was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92) with a sensitivity of 70% and 53% at a specificity of 90% and 95%, respectively (95% CI: 0.65-0.82 and 95% CI: 0.52-0.71 respectively). In subgroup analysis for time to diagnosis, the AUC value of the AI system was higher in the 0-6 month period than in later periods.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the potential of AI in detecting ICs in initial mammograms and reducing human errors and undetected cancers.

Reproducibility and Explainability of Deep Learning in Mammography: A Systematic Review of Literature

Background  Although abundant literature is currently available on the use of deep learning for breast cancer detection in mammography, the quality of such literature is widely variable. Purpose  To evaluate published literature on breast cancer detection in mammography for reproducibility and to ascertain best practices for model design. Methods  The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify records that described the use of deep learning to detect lesions or classify images into cancer or noncancer. A modification of Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (mQUADAS-2) tool was developed for this review and was applied to the included studies. Results of reported studies (area under curve [AUC] of receiver operator curve [ROC] curve, sensitivity, specificity) were recorded. Results  A total of 12,123 records were screened, of which 107 fit the inclusion criteria. Training and test datasets, key idea behind model architecture, and results were recorded for these studies. Based on mQUADAS-2 assessment, 103 studies had high risk of bias due to nonrepresentative patient selection. Four studies were of adequate quality, of which three trained their own model, and one used a commercial network. Ensemble models were used in two of these. Common strategies used for model training included patch classifiers, image classification networks (ResNet in 67%), and object detection networks (RetinaNet in 67%). The highest reported AUC was 0.927 ± 0.008 on a screening dataset, while it reached 0.945 (0.919-0.968) on an enriched subset. Higher values of AUC (0.955) and specificity (98.5%) were reached when combined radiologist and Artificial Intelligence readings were used than either of them alone. None of the studies provided explainability beyond localization accuracy. None of the studies have studied interaction between AI and radiologist in a real world setting. Conclusion  While deep learning holds much promise in mammography interpretation, evaluation in a reproducible clinical setting and explainable networks are the need of the hour.

An artificial intelligence-powered PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) analyser in urothelial carcinoma alleviating interobserver and intersite variability

AIMS

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have shown promising clinical outcomes in urothelial carcinoma (UC). The combined positive score (CPS) quantifies PD-L1 22C3 expression in UC, but it can vary between pathologists due to the consideration of both immune and tumour cell positivity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered PD-L1 CPS analyser was developed using 1,275,907 cells and 6175.42 mm2 of tissue annotated by pathologists, extracted from 400 PD-L1 22C3-stained whole slide images of UC. We validated the AI model on 543 UC PD-L1 22C3 cases collected from three institutions. There were 446 cases (82.1%) where the CPS results (CPS ≥10 or <10) were in complete agreement between three pathologists, and 486 cases (89.5%) where the AI-powered CPS results matched the consensus of two or more pathologists. In the pathologist's assessment of the CPS, statistically significant differences were noted depending on the source hospital (P = 0.003). Three pathologists reevaluated discrepancy cases with AI-powered CPS results. After using the AI as a guide and revising, the complete agreement increased to 93.9%. The AI model contributed to improving the concordance between pathologists across various factors including hospital, specimen type, pathologic T stage, histologic subtypes, and dominant PD-L1-positive cell type. In the revised results, the evaluation discordance among slides from different hospitals was mitigated.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that AI models can help pathologists to reduce discrepancies between pathologists in quantifying immunohistochemistry including PD-L1 22C3 CPS, especially when evaluating data from different institutions, such as in a telepathology setting.

Uses and limitations of artificial intelligence for oncology

Modern artificial intelligence (AI) tools built on high-dimensional patient data are reshaping oncology care, helping to improve goal-concordant care, decrease cancer mortality rates, and increase workflow efficiency and scope of care. However, data-related concerns and human biases that seep into algorithms during development and post-deployment phases affect performance in real-world settings, limiting the utility and safety of AI technology in oncology clinics. To this end, the authors review the current potential and limitations of predictive AI for cancer diagnosis and prognostication as well as of generative AI, specifically modern chatbots, which interfaces with patients and clinicians. They conclude the review with a discussion on ongoing challenges and regulatory opportunities in the field.

Frequency and characteristics of errors by artificial intelligence (AI) in reading screening mammography: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Artificial intelligence (AI) for reading breast screening mammograms could potentially replace (some) human-reading and improve screening effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify and quantify the types of AI errors to better understand the consequences of implementing this technology.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for external validation studies of the accuracy of AI algorithms in real-world screening mammograms. Descriptive synthesis was performed on error types and frequency. False negative proportions (FNP) and false positive proportions (FPP) were pooled within AI positivity thresholds using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective studies (447,676 examinations; published 2019-2022) met inclusion criteria. Five studies reported AI error as false negatives or false positives. Pooled FPP decreased incrementally with increasing positivity threshold (71.83% [95% CI 69.67, 73.90] at Transpara 3 to 10.77% [95% CI 8.34, 13.79] at Transpara 9). Pooled FNP increased incrementally from 0.02% [95% CI 0.01, 0.03] (Transpara 3) to 0.12% [95% CI 0.06, 0.26] (Transpara 9), consistent with a trade-off with FPP. Heterogeneity within thresholds reflected algorithm version and completeness of the reference standard. Other forms of AI error were reported rarely (location error and technical error in one study each).

CONCLUSION

AI errors are largely interpreted in the framework of test accuracy. FP and FN errors show expected variability not only by positivity threshold, but also by algorithm version and study quality. Reporting of other forms of AI errors is sparse, despite their potential implications for adoption of the technology. Considering broader types of AI error would add nuance to reporting that can inform inferences about AI's utility.

The STOIC2021 COVID-19 AI challenge: Applying reusable training methodologies to private data

Challenges drive the state-of-the-art of automated medical image analysis. The quantity of public training data that they provide can limit the performance of their solutions. Public access to the training methodology for these solutions remains absent. This study implements the Type Three (T3) challenge format, which allows for training solutions on private data and guarantees reusable training methodologies. With T3, challenge organizers train a codebase provided by the participants on sequestered training data. T3 was implemented in the STOIC2021 challenge, with the goal of predicting from a computed tomography (CT) scan whether subjects had a severe COVID-19 infection, defined as intubation or death within one month. STOIC2021 consisted of a Qualification phase, where participants developed challenge solutions using 2000 publicly available CT scans, and a Final phase, where participants submitted their training methodologies with which solutions were trained on CT scans of 9724 subjects. The organizers successfully trained six of the eight Final phase submissions. The submitted codebases for training and running inference were released publicly. The winning solution obtained an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discerning between severe and non-severe COVID-19 of 0.815. The Final phase solutions of all finalists improved upon their Qualification phase solutions.

A Clinician's Guide to Sharing Data for AI in Ophthalmology

Data is the cornerstone of using AI models, because their performance directly depends on the diversity, quantity, and quality of the data used for training. Using AI presents unique potential, particularly in medical applications that involve rich data such as ophthalmology, encompassing a variety of imaging methods, medical records, and eye-tracking data. However, sharing medical data comes with challenges because of regulatory issues and privacy concerns. This review explores traditional and nontraditional data sharing methods in medicine, focusing on previous works in ophthalmology. Traditional methods involve direct data transfer, whereas newer approaches prioritize security and privacy by sharing derived datasets, creating secure research environments, or using model-to-data strategies. We examine each method's mechanisms, variations, recent applications in ophthalmology, and their respective advantages and disadvantages. By empowering medical researchers with insights into data sharing methods and considerations, this review aims to assist informed decision-making while upholding ethical standards and patient privacy in medical AI development.

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.

Population-wide evaluation of artificial intelligence and radiologist assessment of screening mammograms

OBJECTIVES

To validate an AI system for standalone breast cancer detection on an entire screening population in comparison to first-reading breast radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All mammography screenings performed between August 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018, in the Region of Southern Denmark with follow-up within 24 months were eligible. Screenings were assessed as normal or abnormal by breast radiologists through double reading with arbitration. For an AI decision of normal or abnormal, two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec) of first readers. Accuracy measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and recall rate (RR).

RESULTS

The sample included 249,402 screenings (149,495 women) and 2033 breast cancers (72.6% screen-detected cancers, 27.4% interval cancers). AIsens had lower specificity (97.5% vs 97.7%; p < 0.0001) and PPV (17.5% vs 18.7%; p = 0.01) and a higher RR (3.0% vs 2.8%; p < 0.0001) than first readers. AIspec was comparable to first readers in terms of all accuracy measures. Both AIsens and AIspec detected significantly fewer screen-detected cancers (1166 (AIsens), 1156 (AIspec) vs 1252; p < 0.0001) but found more interval cancers compared to first readers (126 (AIsens), 117 (AIspec) vs 39; p < 0.0001) with varying types of cancers detected across multiple subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Standalone AI can detect breast cancer at an accuracy level equivalent to the standard of first readers when the AI threshold point was matched at first reader specificity. However, AI and first readers detected a different composition of cancers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Replacing first readers with AI with an appropriate cut-off score could be feasible. AI-detected cancers not detected by radiologists suggest a potential increase in the number of cancers detected if AI is implemented to support double reading within screening, although the clinicopathological characteristics of detected cancers would not change significantly.

KEY POINTS

• Standalone AI cancer detection was compared to first readers in a double-read mammography screening population. • Standalone AI matched at first reader specificity showed no statistically significant difference in overall accuracy but detected different cancers. • With an appropriate threshold, AI-integrated screening can increase the number of detected cancers with similar clinicopathological characteristics.

Improving mammography interpretation for both novice and experienced readers: a comparative study of two commercial artificial intelligence software

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the improvement of mammography interpretation for novice and experienced radiologists assisted by two commercial AI software.

METHODS

We compared the performance of two AI software (AI-1 and AI-2) in two experienced and two novice readers for 200 mammographic examinations (80 cancer cases). Two reading sessions were conducted within 4 weeks. The readers rated the likelihood of malignancy (range, 1-7) and the percentage probability of malignancy (range, 0-100%), with and without AI assistance. Differences in AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean AUROC increased in both novice (0.86 to 0.90 with AI-1 [p = 0.005]; 0.91 with AI-2 [p < 0.001]) and experienced readers (0.87 to 0.92 with AI-1 [p < 0.001]; 0.90 with AI-2 [p = 0.004]). Sensitivities increased from 81.3 to 88.8% with AI-1 (p = 0.027) and to 91.3% with AI-2 (p = 0.005) in novice readers, and from 81.9 to 90.6% with AI-1 (p = 0.001) and to 87.5% with AI-2 (p = 0.016) in experienced readers. Specificity did not decrease significantly in both novice (p > 0.999, both) and experienced readers (p > 0.999 with AI-1 and 0.282 with AI-2). There was no significant difference in the performance change depending on the type of AI software (p > 0.999).

CONCLUSION

Commercial AI software improved the diagnostic performance of both novice and experienced readers. The type of AI software used did not significantly impact performance changes. Further validation with a larger number of cases and readers is needed.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Commercial AI software effectively aided mammography interpretation irrespective of the experience level of human readers.

KEY POINTS

• Mammography interpretation remains challenging and is subject to a wide range of interobserver variability. • In this multi-reader study, two commercial AI software improved the sensitivity of mammography interpretation by both novice and experienced readers. The type of AI software used did not significantly impact performance changes. • Commercial AI software may effectively support mammography interpretation irrespective of the experience level of human readers.

Elevating healthcare through artificial intelligence: analyzing the abdominal emergencies data set (TR_ABDOMEN_RAD_EMERGENCY) at TEKNOFEST-2022

OBJECTIVES

The artificial intelligence competition in healthcare at TEKNOFEST-2022 provided a platform to address the complex multi-class classification challenge of abdominal emergencies using computer vision techniques. This manuscript aimed to comprehensively present the methodologies for data preparation, annotation procedures, and rigorous evaluation metrics. Moreover, it was conducted to introduce a meticulously curated abdominal emergencies data set to the researchers.

METHODS

The data set underwent a comprehensive central screening procedure employing diverse algorithms extracted from the e-Nabız (Pulse) and National Teleradiology System of the Republic of Türkiye, Ministry of Health. Full anonymization of the data set was conducted. Subsequently, the data set was annotated by a group of ten experienced radiologists. The evaluation process was executed by calculating F1 scores, which were derived from the intersection over union values between the predicted bounding boxes and the corresponding ground truth (GT) bounding boxes. The establishment of baseline performance metrics involved computing the average of the highest five F1 scores.

RESULTS

Observations indicated a progressive decline in F1 scores as the threshold value increased. Furthermore, it could be deduced that class 6 (abdominal aortic aneurysm/dissection) was relatively straightforward to detect compared to other classes, with class 5 (acute diverticulitis) presenting the most formidable challenge. It is noteworthy, however, that if all achieved outcomes for all classes were considered with a threshold of 0.5, the data set's complexity and associated challenges became pronounced.

CONCLUSION

This data set's significance lies in its pioneering provision of labels and GT-boxes for six classes, fostering opportunities for researchers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The prompt identification and timely intervention in cases of emergent medical conditions hold paramount significance. The handling of patients' care can be augmented, while the potential for errors is minimized, particularly amidst high caseload scenarios, through the application of AI.

KEY POINTS

• The data set used in artificial intelligence competition in healthcare (TEKNOFEST-2022) provides a 6-class data set of abdominal CT images consisting of a great variety of abdominal emergencies. • This data set is compiled from the National Teleradiology System data repository of emergency radiology departments of 459 hospitals. • Radiological data on abdominal emergencies is scarce in literature and this annotated competition data set can be a valuable resource for further studies and new AI models.

Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Emergency Medicine: Applications, Challenges, and Future Perspectives

The dawn of Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare stands as a milestone in medical innovation. Different medical fields are heavily involved, and pediatric emergency medicine is no exception. We conducted a narrative review structured in two parts. The first part explores the theoretical principles of AI, providing all the necessary background to feel confident with these new state-of-the-art tools. The second part presents an informative analysis of AI models in pediatric emergencies. We examined PubMed and Cochrane Library from inception up to April 2024. Key applications include triage optimization, predictive models for traumatic brain injury assessment, and computerized sepsis prediction systems. In each of these domains, AI models outperformed standard methods. The main barriers to a widespread adoption include technological challenges, but also ethical issues, age-related differences in data interpretation, and the paucity of comprehensive datasets in the pediatric context. Future feasible research directions should address the validation of models through prospective datasets with more numerous sample sizes of patients. Furthermore, our analysis shows that it is essential to tailor AI algorithms to specific medical needs. This requires a close partnership between clinicians and developers. Building a shared knowledge platform is therefore a key step.

How long does it take to read a mammogram? Investigating the reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography

PURPOSE

To analyse digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reading times in the screening setting, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and investigate the impact of reader experience and professional group on interpretation times.

METHOD

Reading time data were recorded in the PROSPECTS Trial, a prospective randomised trial comparing DBT plus FFDM or synthetic 2D mammography (S2D) to FFDM alone, in the National Health Service (NHS) breast screening programme, from January 2019-February 2023. Time to read DBT+FFDM or DBT+S2D and FFDM alone was calculated per case and reading times were compared between modalities using dependent T-tests. Reading times were compared between readers from different professional groups (radiologists and radiographer readers) and experience levels using independent T-tests. The learning curve effect of using DBT in screening on reading time was investigated using a Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Forty-eight readers interpreted 1,242 FFDM batches (34,210 FFDM cases) and 973 DBT batches (13,983 DBT cases). DBT reading time was doubled compared to FFDM (2.09 ± 0.64 min vs. 0.98 ± 0.30 min; p < 0.001), and DBT+S2D reading was longer than DBT + FFDM (2.24 ± 0.62 min vs. 2.04 ± 0.46 min; p = 0.006). No difference was identified in reading time between radiologists and radiographers (2.06 ± 0.71 min vs. 2.14 ± 0.46 min, respectively; p = 0.71). Readers with five or more years of experience reading DBT were quicker than those with less experience (1.86 ± 0.56 min vs. 2.37 ± 0.65 min; p = 0.008), and DBT reading time decreased after less than 9 months accrued screening experience (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

DBT reading times were double those of FFDM in the screening setting, but there was a short learning curve effect with readers showing significant improvements in reading times within the first nine months of DBT experience.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT03733106.

Cranial Computer Tomography with Photon Counting and Energy-Integrated Detectors: Objective Comparison in the Same Patients

This study provides an objective comparison of cranial computed tomography (CT) imaging quality and radiation dose between photon counting detectors (PCCTs) and energy-integrated detectors (EIDs). We retrospectively analyzed 158 CT scans from 76 patients, employing both detector types on the same individuals to ensure a consistent comparison. Our analysis focused on the Computed Tomography Dose Index and the Dose-Length Product together with the contrast-to-noise ratio and the signal-to-noise ratio for brain gray and white matter. We utilized standardized imaging protocols and consistent patient positioning to minimize variables. PCCT showed a potential for higher image quality and lower radiation doses, as highlighted by this study, thus achieving diagnostic clarity with reduced radiation exposure, underlining its significance in patient care, particularly for patients requiring multiple scans. The results demonstrated that while both systems were effective, PCCT offered enhanced imaging and patient safety in neuroradiological evaluations.

A Semiautonomous Deep Learning System to Reduce False Positives in Screening Mammography

Purpose To evaluate the ability of a semiautonomous artificial intelligence (AI) model to identify screening mammograms not suspicious for breast cancer and reduce the number of false-positive examinations. Materials and Methods The deep learning algorithm was trained using 123 248 two-dimensional digital mammograms (6161 cancers) and a retrospective study was performed on three nonoverlapping datasets of 14 831 screening mammography examinations (1026 cancers) from two U.S. institutions and one U.K. institution (2008-2017). The stand-alone performance of humans and AI was compared. Human plus AI performance was simulated to examine reductions in the cancer detection rate, number of examinations, false-positive callbacks, and benign biopsies. Metrics were adjusted to mimic the natural distribution of a screening population, and bootstrapped CIs and P values were calculated. Results Retrospective evaluation on all datasets showed minimal changes to the cancer detection rate with use of the AI device (noninferiority margin of 0.25 cancers per 1000 examinations: U.S. dataset 1, P = .02; U.S. dataset 2, P < .001; U.K. dataset, P < .001). On U.S. dataset 1 (11 592 mammograms; 101 cancers; 3810 female patients; mean age, 57.3 years ± 10.0 [SD]), the device reduced screening examinations requiring radiologist interpretation by 41.6% (95% CI: 40.6%, 42.4%; P < .001), diagnostic examinations callbacks by 31.1% (95% CI: 28.7%, 33.4%; P < .001), and benign needle biopsies by 7.4% (95% CI: 4.1%, 12.4%; P < .001). U.S. dataset 2 (1362 mammograms; 330 cancers; 1293 female patients; mean age, 55.4 years ± 10.5) was reduced by 19.5% (95% CI: 16.9%, 22.1%; P < .001), 11.9% (95% CI: 8.6%, 15.7%; P < .001), and 6.5% (95% CI: 0.0%, 19.0%; P = .08), respectively. The U.K. dataset (1877 mammograms; 595 cancers; 1491 female patients; mean age, 63.5 years ± 7.1) was reduced by 36.8% (95% CI: 34.4%, 39.7%; P < .001), 17.1% (95% CI: 5.9%, 30.1%: P < .001), and 5.9% (95% CI: 2.9%, 11.5%; P < .001), respectively. Conclusion This work demonstrates the potential of a semiautonomous breast cancer screening system to reduce false positives, unnecessary procedures, patient anxiety, and medical expenses. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Semiautonomous Deep Learning, Breast Cancer, Screening Mammography Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions

Artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology is advancing beyond algorithm development to integration into clinical practice. This review describes the current state of the field, with a specific focus on clinical integration. AI applications are structured according to cancer type and clinical domain, focusing on the four most common cancers and tasks of detection, diagnosis, and treatment. These applications encompass various data modalities, including imaging, genomics, and medical records. We conclude with a summary of existing challenges, evolving solutions, and potential future directions for the field.

SIGNIFICANCE

AI is increasingly being applied to all aspects of oncology, where several applications are maturing beyond research and development to direct clinical integration. This review summarizes the current state of the field through the lens of clinical translation along the clinical care continuum. Emerging areas are also highlighted, along with common challenges, evolving solutions, and potential future directions for the field.

Screening mammography performance according to breast density: a comparison between radiologists versus standalone intelligence detection

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for the independent assessment of screening mammograms have not been well established in a large screening cohort of Asian women. We compared the performance of screening digital mammography considering breast density, between radiologists and AI standalone detection among Korean women.

METHODS

We retrospectively included 89,855 Korean women who underwent their initial screening digital mammography from 2009 to 2020. Breast cancer within 12 months of the screening mammography was the reference standard, according to the National Cancer Registry. Lunit software was used to determine the probability of malignancy scores, with a cutoff of 10% for breast cancer detection. The AI's performance was compared with that of the final Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category, as recorded by breast radiologists. Breast density was classified into four categories (A-D) based on the radiologist and AI-based assessments. The performance metrics (cancer detection rate [CDR], sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], recall rate, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) were compared across breast density categories.

RESULTS

Mean participant age was 43.5 ± 8.7 years; 143 breast cancer cases were identified within 12 months. The CDRs (1.1/1000 examination) and sensitivity values showed no significant differences between radiologist and AI-based results (69.9% [95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7-77.3] vs. 67.1% [95% CI, 58.8-74.8]). However, the AI algorithm showed better specificity (93.0% [95% CI, 92.9-93.2] vs. 77.6% [95% CI, 61.7-77.9]), PPV (1.5% [95% CI, 1.2-1.9] vs. 0.5% [95% CI, 0.4-0.6]), recall rate (7.1% [95% CI, 6.9-7.2] vs. 22.5% [95% CI, 22.2-22.7]), and AUC values (0.8 [95% CI, 0.76-0.84] vs. 0.74 [95% CI, 0.7-0.78]) (all P < 0.05). Radiologist and AI-based results showed the best performance in the non-dense category; the CDR and sensitivity were higher for radiologists in the heterogeneously dense category (P = 0.059). However, the specificity, PPV, and recall rate consistently favored AI-based results across all categories, including the extremely dense category.

CONCLUSIONS

AI-based software showed slightly lower sensitivity, although the difference was not statistically significant. However, it outperformed radiologists in recall rate, specificity, PPV, and AUC, with disparities most prominent in extremely dense breast tissue.

Deep Learning in Breast Cancer Imaging: State of the Art and Recent Advancements in Early 2024

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly impacted various aspects of healthcare, particularly in the medical imaging field. This review focuses on recent developments in the application of deep learning (DL) techniques to breast cancer imaging. DL models, a subset of AI algorithms inspired by human brain architecture, have demonstrated remarkable success in analyzing complex medical images, enhancing diagnostic precision, and streamlining workflows. DL models have been applied to breast cancer diagnosis via mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Furthermore, DL-based radiomic approaches may play a role in breast cancer risk assessment, prognosis prediction, and therapeutic response monitoring. Nevertheless, several challenges have limited the widespread adoption of AI techniques in clinical practice, emphasizing the importance of rigorous validation, interpretability, and technical considerations when implementing DL solutions. By examining fundamental concepts in DL techniques applied to medical imaging and synthesizing the latest advancements and trends, this narrative review aims to provide valuable and up-to-date insights for radiologists seeking to harness the power of AI in breast cancer care.

Positive Predictive Values of Abnormality Scores From a Commercial Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Mammography

OBJECTIVE

Artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) is increasingly used in mammography. While the continuous scores of AI-CAD have been related to malignancy risk, the understanding of how to interpret and apply these scores remains limited. We investigated the positive predictive values (PPVs) of the abnormality scores generated by a deep learning-based commercial AI-CAD system and analyzed them in relation to clinical and radiological findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2020 to May 2022, 656 breasts from 599 women (mean age 52.6 ± 11.5 years, including 0.6% [4/599] high-risk women) who underwent mammography and received positive AI-CAD results (Lunit Insight MMG, abnormality score ≥ 10) were retrospectively included in this study. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between the AI-CAD abnormality scores and clinical and radiological factors. The breasts were subdivided according to the abnormality scores into groups 1 (10-49), 2 (50-69), 3 (70-89), and 4 (90-100) using the optimal binning method. The PPVs were calculated for all breasts and subgroups.

RESULTS

Diagnostic indications and positive imaging findings by radiologists were associated with higher abnormality scores in the multivariable regression analysis. The overall PPV of AI-CAD was 32.5% (213/656) for all breasts, including 213 breast cancers, 129 breasts with benign biopsy results, and 314 breasts with benign outcomes in the follow-up or diagnostic studies. In the screening mammography subgroup, the PPVs were 18.6% (58/312) overall and 5.1% (12/235), 29.0% (9/31), 57.9% (11/19), and 96.3% (26/27) for score groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The PPVs were significantly higher in women with diagnostic indications (45.1% [155/344]), palpability (51.9% [149/287]), fatty breasts (61.2% [60/98]), and certain imaging findings (masses with or without calcifications and distortion).

CONCLUSION

PPV increased with increasing AI-CAD abnormality scores. The PPVs of AI-CAD satisfied the acceptable PPV range according to Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System for screening mammography and were higher for diagnostic mammography.

Development of an explainable artificial intelligence model for Asian vascular wound images

Chronic wounds contribute to significant healthcare and economic burden worldwide. Wound assessment remains challenging given its complex and dynamic nature. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning methods in wound analysis is promising. Explainable modelling can help its integration and acceptance in healthcare systems. We aim to develop an explainable AI model for analysing vascular wound images among an Asian population. Two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven wound images from a vascular wound image registry from a tertiary institution in Singapore were utilized. The dataset was split into training, validation and test sets. Wound images were classified into four types (neuroischaemic ulcer [NIU], surgical site infections [SSI], venous leg ulcers [VLU], pressure ulcer [PU]), measured with automatic estimation of width, length and depth and segmented into 18 wound and peri-wound features. Data pre-processing was performed using oversampling and augmentation techniques. Convolutional and deep learning models were utilized for model development. The model was evaluated with accuracy, F1 score and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Explainability methods were used to interpret AI decision reasoning. A web browser application was developed to demonstrate results of the wound AI model with explainability. After development, the model was tested on additional 15 476 unlabelled images to evaluate effectiveness. After the development on the training and validation dataset, the model performance on unseen labelled images in the test set achieved an AUROC of 0.99 for wound classification with mean accuracy of 95.9%. For wound measurements, the model achieved AUROC of 0.97 with mean accuracy of 85.0% for depth classification, and AUROC of 0.92 with mean accuracy of 87.1% for width and length determination. For wound segmentation, an AUROC of 0.95 and mean accuracy of 87.8% was achieved. Testing on unlabelled images, the model confidence score for wound classification was 82.8% with an explainability score of 60.6%. Confidence score was 87.6% for depth classification with 68.0% explainability score, while width and length measurement obtained 93.0% accuracy score with 76.6% explainability. Confidence score for wound segmentation was 83.9%, while explainability was 72.1%. Using explainable AI models, we have developed an algorithm and application for analysis of vascular wound images from an Asian population with accuracy and explainability. With further development, it can be utilized as a clinical decision support system and integrated into existing healthcare electronic systems.

Machine learning and new insights for breast cancer diagnosis

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prominent form of cancer among females all over the world. The current methods of BC detection include X-ray mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and breast thermographic techniques. More recently, machine learning (ML) tools have been increasingly employed in diagnostic medicine for its high efficiency in detection and intervention. The subsequent imaging features and mathematical analyses can then be used to generate ML models, which stratify, differentiate and detect benign and malignant breast lesions. Given its marked advantages, radiomics is a frequently used tool in recent research and clinics. Artificial neural networks and deep learning (DL) are novel forms of ML that evaluate data using computer simulation of the human brain. DL directly processes unstructured information, such as images, sounds and language, and performs precise clinical image stratification, medical record analyses and tumour diagnosis. Herein, this review thoroughly summarizes prior investigations on the application of medical images for the detection and intervention of BC using radiomics, namely DL and ML. The aim was to provide guidance to scientists regarding the use of artificial intelligence and ML in research and the clinic.

Transfer learning for the generalization of artificial intelligence in breast cancer detection: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Some researchers have questioned whether artificial intelligence (AI) systems maintain their performance when used for women from populations not considered during the development of the system.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of transfer learning as a way of improving the generalization of AI systems in the detection of breast cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective case-control Finnish study involved 191 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 191 matched healthy controls. We selected a state-of-the-art AI system for breast cancer detection trained using a large US dataset. The selected baseline system was evaluated in two experimental settings. First, we examined our private Finnish sample as an independent test set that had not been considered in the development of the system (unseen population). Second, the baseline system was retrained to attempt to improve its performance in the unseen population by means of transfer learning. To analyze performance, we used areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) with DeLong's test.

RESULTS

Two versions of the baseline system were considered: ImageOnly and Heatmaps. The ImageOnly and Heatmaps versions yielded mean AUC values of 0.82±0.008 and 0.88±0.003 in the US dataset and 0.56 (95% CI=0.50-0.62) and 0.72 (95% CI=0.67-0.77) when evaluated in the unseen population, respectively. The retrained systems achieved AUC values of 0.61 (95% CI=0.55-0.66) and 0.69 (95% CI=0.64-0.75), respectively. There was no statistical difference between the baseline system and the retrained system.

CONCLUSION

Transfer learning with a small study sample did not yield a significant improvement in the generalization of the system.

Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Opportunities and Challenges

Artificial intelligence's (AI) emergence in radiology elicits both excitement and uncertainty. AI holds promise for improving radiology with regards to clinical practice, education, and research opportunities. Yet, AI systems are trained on select datasets that can contain bias and inaccuracies. Radiologists must understand these limitations and engage with AI developers at every step of the process - from algorithm initiation and design to development and implementation - to maximize benefit and minimize harm that can be enabled by this technology.

Artificial intelligence in paediatric endocrinology: conflict or cooperation

Artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is transforming healthcare by automating system tasks, assisting in diagnostics, predicting patient outcomes and personalising patient care, founded on the ability to analyse vast datasets. In paediatric endocrinology, AI has been developed for diabetes, for insulin dose adjustment, detection of hypoglycaemia and retinopathy screening; bone age assessment and thyroid nodule screening; the identification of growth disorders; the diagnosis of precocious puberty; and the use of facial recognition algorithms in conditions such as Cushing syndrome, acromegaly, congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Turner syndrome. AI can also predict those most at risk from childhood obesity by stratifying future interventions to modify lifestyle. AI will facilitate personalised healthcare by integrating data from 'omics' analysis, lifestyle tracking, medical history, laboratory and imaging, therapy response and treatment adherence from multiple sources. As data acquisition and processing becomes fundamental, data privacy and protecting children's health data is crucial. Minimising algorithmic bias generated by AI analysis for rare conditions seen in paediatric endocrinology is an important determinant of AI validity in clinical practice. AI cannot create the patient-doctor relationship or assess the wider holistic determinants of care. Children have individual needs and vulnerabilities and are considered in the context of family relationships and dynamics. Importantly, whilst AI provides value through augmenting efficiency and accuracy, it must not be used to replace clinical skills.

AI performance by mammographic density in a retrospective cohort study of 99,489 participants in BreastScreen Norway

OBJECTIVE

To explore the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to classify breast cancer by mammographic density in an organized screening program.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

We included information about 99,489 examinations from 74,941 women who participated in BreastScreen Norway, 2013-2019. All examinations were analyzed with an AI system that assigned a malignancy risk score (AI score) from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) for each examination. Mammographic density was classified into Volpara density grade (VDG), VDG1-4; VDG1 indicated fatty and VDG4 extremely dense breasts. Screen-detected and interval cancers with an AI score of 1-10 were stratified by VDG.

RESULTS

We found 10,406 (10.5% of the total) examinations to have an AI risk score of 10, of which 6.7% (704/10,406) was breast cancer. The cancers represented 89.7% (617/688) of the screen-detected and 44.6% (87/195) of the interval cancers. 20.3% (20,178/99,489) of the examinations were classified as VDG1 and 6.1% (6047/99,489) as VDG4. For screen-detected cancers, 84.0% (68/81, 95% CI, 74.1-91.2) had an AI score of 10 for VDG1, 88.9% (328/369, 95% CI, 85.2-91.9) for VDG2, 92.5% (185/200, 95% CI, 87.9-95.7) for VDG3, and 94.7% (36/38, 95% CI, 82.3-99.4) for VDG4. For interval cancers, the percentages with an AI score of 10 were 33.3% (3/9, 95% CI, 7.5-70.1) for VDG1 and 48.0% (12/25, 95% CI, 27.8-68.7) for VDG4.

CONCLUSION

The tested AI system performed well according to cancer detection across all density categories, especially for extremely dense breasts. The highest proportion of screen-detected cancers with an AI score of 10 was observed for women classified as VDG4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Our study demonstrates that AI can correctly classify the majority of screen-detected and about half of the interval breast cancers, regardless of breast density.

KEY POINTS

• Mammographic density is important to consider in the evaluation of artificial intelligence in mammographic screening. • Given a threshold representing about 10% of those with the highest malignancy risk score by an AI system, we found an increasing percentage of cancers with increasing mammographic density. • Artificial intelligence risk score and mammographic density combined may help triage examinations to reduce workload for radiologists.

Barriers and facilitators of artificial intelligence conception and implementation for breast imaging diagnosis in clinical practice: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Although artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated promise in enhancing breast cancer diagnosis, the implementation of AI algorithms in clinical practice encounters various barriers. This scoping review aims to identify these barriers and facilitators to highlight key considerations for developing and implementing AI solutions in breast cancer imaging.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted from 2012 to 2022 in six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase, IEEE, and ArXiv). The articles were included if some barriers and/or facilitators in the conception or implementation of AI in breast clinical imaging were described. We excluded research only focusing on performance, or with data not acquired in a clinical radiology setup and not involving real patients.

RESULTS

A total of 107 articles were included. We identified six major barriers related to data (B1), black box and trust (B2), algorithms and conception (B3), evaluation and validation (B4), legal, ethical, and economic issues (B5), and education (B6), and five major facilitators covering data (F1), clinical impact (F2), algorithms and conception (F3), evaluation and validation (F4), and education (F5).

CONCLUSION

This scoping review highlighted the need to carefully design, deploy, and evaluate AI solutions in clinical practice, involving all stakeholders to yield improvement in healthcare.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The identification of barriers and facilitators with suggested solutions can guide and inform future research, and stakeholders to improve the design and implementation of AI for breast cancer detection in clinical practice.

KEY POINTS

• Six major identified barriers were related to data; black-box and trust; algorithms and conception; evaluation and validation; legal, ethical, and economic issues; and education. • Five major identified facilitators were related to data, clinical impact, algorithms and conception, evaluation and validation, and education. • Coordinated implication of all stakeholders is required to improve breast cancer diagnosis with AI.

From Pixels to Diagnosis: Algorithmic Analysis of Clinical Oral Photos for Early Detection of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) accounts for more than 90% of oral malignancies. Despite numerous advancements in understanding its biology, the mean five-year survival rate of OSCC is still very poor at about 50%, with even lower rates when the disease is detected at later stages. We investigate the use of clinical photographic images taken by common smartphones for the automated detection of OSCC cases and for the identification of suspicious cases mimicking cancer that require an urgent biopsy. We perform a retrospective study on a cohort of 1470 patients drawn from both hospital records and online academic sources. We examine various deep learning methods for the early detection of OSCC cases as well as for the detection of suspicious cases. Our results demonstrate the efficacy of these methods in both tasks, providing a comprehensive understanding of the patient's condition. When evaluated on holdout data, the model to predict OSCC achieved an AUC of 0.96 (CI: 0.91, 0.98), with a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.81. When the data are stratified based on lesion location, we find that our models can provide enhanced accuracy (AUC 1.00) in differentiating specific groups of patients that have lesions in the lingual mucosa, floor of mouth, or posterior tongue. These results underscore the potential of leveraging clinical photos for the timely and accurate identification of OSCC.

Diagnostic capabilities of artificial intelligence as an additional reader in a breast cancer screening program

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the early-detection capabilities of AI in a screening program over its duration, with a specific focus on the detection of interval cancers, the early detection of cancers with the assistance of AI from prior visits, and its impact on workload for various reading scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 22,621 mammograms of 8825 women within a 10-year biennial two-reader screening program. The statistical analysis focused on 5136 mammograms from 4282 women due to data retrieval issues, among whom 105 were diagnosed with breast cancer. The AI software assigned scores from 1 to 100. Histopathology results determined the ground truth, and Youden's index was used to establish a threshold. Tumor characteristics were analyzed with ANOVA and chi-squared test, and different workflow scenarios were evaluated using bootstrapping.

RESULTS

The AI software achieved an AUC of 89.6% (86.1-93.2%, 95% CI). The optimal threshold was 30.44, yielding 72.38% sensitivity and 92.86% specificity. Initially, AI identified 57 screening-detected cancers (83.82%), 15 interval cancers (51.72%), and 4 missed cancers (50%). AI as a second reader could have led to earlier diagnosis in 24 patients (average 29.92 ± 19.67 months earlier). No significant differences were found in cancer-characteristics groups. A hybrid triage workflow scenario showed a potential 69.5% reduction in workload and a 30.5% increase in accuracy.

CONCLUSION

This AI system exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in screening mammograms, effectively identifying interval and missed cancers and identifying 23% of cancers earlier in prior mammograms. Adopting AI as a triage mechanism has the potential to reduce workload by nearly 70%.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The study proposes a more efficient method for screening programs, both in terms of workload and accuracy.

KEY POINTS

• Incorporating AI as a triage tool in screening workflow improves sensitivity (72.38%) and specificity (92.86%), enhancing detection rates for interval and missed cancers. • AI-assisted triaging is effective in differentiating low and high-risk cases, reduces radiologist workload, and potentially enables broader screening coverage. • AI has the potential to facilitate early diagnosis compared to human reading.

Women's perceptions and attitudes towards the use of AI in mammography in Sweden: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Understanding women's perspectives can help to create an effective and acceptable artificial intelligence (AI) implementation for triaging mammograms, ensuring a high proportion of screening-detected cancer. This study aimed to explore Swedish women's perceptions and attitudes towards the use of AI in mammography.

METHOD

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 women recruited in the spring of 2023 at Capio S:t Görans Hospital, Sweden, during an ongoing clinical trial of AI in screening (ScreenTrustCAD, NCT04778670) with Philips equipment. The interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

In general, women viewed AI as an excellent complementary tool to help radiologists in their decision-making, rather than a complete replacement of their expertise. To trust the AI, the women requested a thorough evaluation, transparency about AI usage in healthcare, and the involvement of a radiologist in the assessment. They would rather be more worried because of being called in more often for scans than risk having overlooked a sign of cancer. They expressed substantial trust in the healthcare system if the implementation of AI was to become a standard practice.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the interviewed women, in general, hold a positive attitude towards the implementation of AI in mammography; nonetheless, they expect and demand more from an AI than a radiologist. Effective communication regarding the role and limitations of AI is crucial to ensure that patients understand the purpose and potential outcomes of AI-assisted healthcare.

Classification performance bias between training and test sets in a limited mammography dataset

OBJECTIVES

To assess the performance bias caused by sampling data into training and test sets in a mammography radiomics study.

METHODS

Mammograms from 700 women were used to study upstaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. The dataset was repeatedly shuffled and split into training (n = 400) and test cases (n = 300) forty times. For each split, cross-validation was used for training, followed by an assessment of the test set. Logistic regression with regularization and support vector machine were used as the machine learning classifiers. For each split and classifier type, multiple models were created based on radiomics and/or clinical features.

RESULTS

Area under the curve (AUC) performances varied considerably across the different data splits (e.g., radiomics regression model: train 0.58-0.70, test 0.59-0.73). Performances for regression models showed a tradeoff where better training led to worse testing and vice versa. Cross-validation over all cases reduced this variability, but required samples of 500+ cases to yield representative estimates of performance.

CONCLUSIONS

In medical imaging, clinical datasets are often limited to relatively small size. Models built from different training sets may not be representative of the whole dataset. Depending on the selected data split and model, performance bias could lead to inappropriate conclusions that might influence the clinical significance of the findings.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Performance bias can result from model testing when using limited datasets. Optimal strategies for test set selection should be developed to ensure study conclusions are appropriate.

The role of an artificial intelligence software in clinical senology: a mammography multi-reader study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic role of a dedicated AI software in detecting anomalous breast findings on mammography and tomosynthesis images in the clinical setting, stand-alone and as aid of four readers.

METHODS

A total of 210 patients with complete clinical and radiologic records were retrospectively analyzed. Pathology was used as the reference standard for patients undergoing surgery or biopsy, and a 1-year follow-up was used to confirm no change in the remaining patients. The image evaluation was performed by four readers with different levels of experience (a junior and three senior breast radiologists) using a 5-point Likert scale moving from 1 (definitively no cancer) to 5 (definitively cancer). The positivity of mammograms was assessed on the presence of any breast lesion (masses, architectural distortions, asymmetries, calcifications), including malignant and benign ones. A multi-reader multi-case analysis was performed. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The stand-alone AI system achieved an accuracy of 71% (69% sensitivity and 73% specificity), which is overall lower than the value achieved by readers without AI. However, with the aid of AI, a significant increase of accuracy (p value  = 0.004) and specificity (p value  = 0.04) was achieved for the less experienced radiologist and a senior one.

CONCLUSION

The use of AI software as a second reader for breast lesions assessment could play a crucial role in the clinical setting, by increasing sensitivity and specificity, especially for less experienced radiologists.

Development and Validation of an Automated Classification System for Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head Using Deep Learning Approach: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Accurate classification can facilitate the selection of appropriate interventions to delay the progression of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). This study aimed to perform the classification of ONFH through a deep learning approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively sampled 1,806 midcoronal magnetic resonance images (MRIs) of 1,337 hips from 4 institutions. Of these, 1,472 midcoronal MRIs of 1,155 hips were divided into training, validation, and test datasets with a ratio of 7:1:2 to develop a convolutional neural network model (CNN). An additional 334 midcoronal MRIs of 182 hips were used to perform external validation. The predictive performance of the CNN and the review panel was also compared.

RESULTS

A multiclass CNN model was successfully developed. In internal validation, the overall accuracy of the CNN for predicting the severity of ONFH based on the Japanese Investigation Committee classification was 87.8%. The macroaverage values of area under the curve (AUC), precision, recall, and F-value were 0.90, 84.8, 84.8, and 84.6%, respectively. In external validation, the overall accuracy of the CNN was 83.8%. The macroaverage values of area under the curve, precision, recall, and F-value were 0.87, 79.5, 80.5, and 79.9%, respectively. In a human-machine comparison study, the CNN outperformed or was comparable to that of the deputy chief orthopaedic surgeons.

CONCLUSION

The CNN is feasible and robust for classifying ONFH and correctly locating the necrotic area. These findings suggest that classifying ONFH using deep learning with high accuracy and generalizability may aid in predicting femoral head collapse and clinical decision-making.

Screening in Patients With Dense Breasts: Comparison of Mammography, Artificial Intelligence, and Supplementary Ultrasound

BACKGROUND. Screening mammography has decreased performance in patients with dense breasts. Supplementary screening ultrasound is a recommended option in such patients, although it has yielded mixed results in prior investigations. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare the performance characteristics of screening mammography alone, standalone artificial intelligence (AI), ultrasound alone, and mammography in combination with AI and/or ultrasound in patients with dense breasts. METHODS. This retrospective study included 1325 women (mean age, 53 years) with dense breasts who underwent both screening mammography and supplementary breast ultrasound within a 1-month interval from January 2017 to December 2017; prior mammography and prior ultrasound examinations were available for comparison in 91.2% and 91.8%, respectively. Mammography and ultrasound examinations were interpreted by one of 15 radiologists (five staff; 10 fellows); clinical reports were used for the present analysis. A commercial AI tool was used to retrospectively evaluate mammographic examinations for presence of cancer. Screening performances were compared among mammography, AI, ultrasound, and test combinations, using generalized estimating equations. Benign diagnoses required 24 months or longer of imaging stability. RESULTS. Twelve cancers (six invasive ductal carcinoma; six ductal carcinoma in situ) were diagnosed. Mammography, standalone AI, and ultrasound showed cancer detection rates (per 1000 patients) of 6.0, 6.8, and 6.0 (all p > .05); recall rates of 4.4%, 11.9%, and 9.2% (all p < .05); sensitivity of 66.7%, 75.0%, and 66.7% (all p > .05); specificity of 96.2%, 88.7%, and 91.3% (all p < .05); and accuracy of 95.9%, 88.5%, and 91.1% (all p < .05). Mammography with AI, mammography with ultrasound, and mammography with both ultrasound and AI showed cancer detection rates of 7.5, 9.1, and 9.1 (all p > .05); recall rates of 14.9, 11.7, and 21.4 (all p < .05); sensitivity of 83.3%, 100.0%, and 100.0% (all p > .05); specificity of 85.8%, 89.1%, and 79.4% (all p < .05); and accuracy of 85.7%, 89.2%, and 79.5% (all p < .05). CONCLUSION. Mammography with supplementary ultrasound showed higher accuracy, higher specificity, and lower recall rate in comparison with mammography with AI and in comparison with mammography with both ultrasound and AI. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings fail to show benefit of AI with respect to screening mammography performed with supplementary breast ultrasound in patients with dense breasts.

[Use of AI-based applications by hospital staff: task profiles and qualification requirements]

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly important for the future development of hospitals. To unlock the large potential of AI, job profiles of hospital staff members need to be further developed in the direction of AI and digitization skills through targeted qualification measures. This affects both medical and non-medical processes along the entire value chain in hospitals. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the skills required to deal with smart technologies in a clinical context and to present measures for training employees.

METHODS

As part of the "SmartHospital.NRW" project in 2022, we conducted a literature review as well as interviews and workshops with experts. AI technologies and fields of application were identified.

RESULTS

Key findings include adapted and new task profiles, synergies and dependencies between individual task profiles, and the need for a comprehensive interdisciplinary and interprofessional exchange when using AI-based applications in hospitals.

DISCUSSION

Our article shows that hospitals need to promote digital health literacy skills for hospital staff members at an early stage and at the same time recruit technology- and AI-savvy staff. Interprofessional exchange formats and accompanying change management are essential for the use of AI in hospitals.

Systematic reviews of machine learning in healthcare: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

The increasing availability of data and computing power has made machine learning (ML) a viable approach to faster, more efficient healthcare delivery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) of published SLRs evaluating ML applications in healthcare settings published between1 January 2010 and 27 March 2023 was conducted.

RESULTS

In total 220 SLRs covering 10,462 ML algorithms were reviewed. The main application of AI in medicine related to the clinical prediction and disease prognosis in oncology and neurology with the use of imaging data. Accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity were provided in 56%, 28%, and 25% SLRs respectively. Internal and external validation was reported in 53% and less than 1% of the cases respectively. The most common modeling approach was neural networks (2,454 ML algorithms), followed by support vector machine and random forest/decision trees (1,578 and 1,522 ML algorithms, respectively).

EXPERT OPINION

The review indicated considerable reporting gaps in terms of the ML's performance, both internal and external validation. Greater accessibility to healthcare data for developers can ensure the faster adoption of ML algorithms into clinical practice.

Breast cancer detection accuracy of AI in an entire screening population: a retrospective, multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are proposed as a replacement of the first reader in double reading within mammography screening. We aimed to assess cancer detection accuracy of an AI system in a Danish screening population.

METHODS

We retrieved a consecutive screening cohort from the Region of Southern Denmark including all participating women between Aug 4, 2014, and August 15, 2018. Screening mammograms were processed by a commercial AI system and detection accuracy was evaluated in two scenarios, Standalone AI and AI-integrated screening replacing first reader, with first reader and double reading with arbitration (combined reading) as comparators, respectively. Two AI-score cut-off points were applied by matching at mean first reader sensitivity (AIsens) and specificity (AIspec). Reference standard was histopathology-proven breast cancer or cancer-free follow-up within 24 months. Coprimary endpoints were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary endpoints were positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), recall rate, and arbitration rate. Accuracy estimates were calculated using McNemar's test or exact binomial test.

RESULTS

Out of 272,008 screening mammograms from 158,732 women, 257,671 (94.7%) with adequate image data were included in the final analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were 63.7% (95% CI 61.6%-65.8%) and 97.8% (97.7-97.8%) for first reader, and 73.9% (72.0-75.8%) and 97.9% (97.9-98.0%) for combined reading, respectively. Standalone AIsens showed a lower specificity (-1.3%) and PPV (-6.1%), and a higher recall rate (+ 1.3%) compared to first reader (p < 0.0001 for all), while Standalone AIspec had a lower sensitivity (-5.1%; p < 0.0001), PPV (-1.3%; p = 0.01) and NPV (-0.04%; p = 0.0002). Compared to combined reading, Integrated AIsens achieved higher sensitivity (+ 2.3%; p = 0.0004), but lower specificity (-0.6%) and PPV (-3.9%) as well as higher recall rate (+ 0.6%) and arbitration rate (+ 2.2%; p < 0.0001 for all). Integrated AIspec showed no significant difference in any outcome measures apart from a slightly higher arbitration rate (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed higher detection of interval cancers by Standalone AI and Integrated AI at both thresholds (p < 0.0001 for all) with a varying composition of detected cancers across multiple subgroups of tumour characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacing first reader in double reading with an AI could be feasible but choosing an appropriate AI threshold is crucial to maintaining cancer detection accuracy and workload.

Evaluating ChatGPT as an adjunct for the multidisciplinary tumor board decision-making in primary breast cancer cases

BACKGROUND

As the available information about breast cancer is growing every day, the decision-making process for the therapy is getting more complex. ChatGPT as a transformer-based language model possesses the ability to write scientific articles and pass medical exams. But is it able to support the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) in the planning of the therapy of patients with breast cancer?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a pilot study on 10 consecutive cases of breast cancer patients discussed in MDT at our department in January 2023. Included were patients with a primary diagnosis of early breast cancer. The recommendation of MDT was compared with the recommendation of the ChatGPT for particular patients and the clinical score of the agreement was calculated.

RESULTS

Results showed that ChatGPT provided mostly general answers regarding chemotherapy, breast surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and antibody therapy. It was able to identify risk factors for hereditary breast cancer and point out the elderly patient indicated for chemotherapy to evaluate the cost/benefit effect. ChatGPT wrongly identified the patient with Her2 1 + and 2 + (FISH negative) as in need of therapy with an antibody and called endocrine therapy "hormonal treatment".

CONCLUSIONS

Support of artificial intelligence by finding individualized and personalized therapy for our patients in the time of rapidly expanding amount of information is looking for the ways in the clinical routine. ChatGPT has the potential to find its spot in clinical medicine, but the current version is not able to provide specific recommendations for the therapy of patients with primary breast cancer.

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.

Saliency of breast lesions in breast cancer detection using artificial intelligence

The analysis of mammograms using artificial intelligence (AI) has shown great potential for assisting breast cancer screening. We use saliency maps to study the role of breast lesions in the decision-making process of AI systems for breast cancer detection in screening mammograms. We retrospectively collected mammograms from 191 women with screen-detected breast cancer and 191 healthy controls matched by age and mammographic system. Two radiologists manually segmented the breast lesions in the mammograms from CC and MLO views. We estimated the detection performance of four deep learning-based AI systems using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used automatic thresholding on saliency maps from the AI systems to identify the areas of interest on the mammograms. Finally, we measured the overlap between these areas of interest and the segmented breast lesions using Dice's similarity coefficient (DSC). The detection performance of the AI systems ranged from low to moderate (AUCs from 0.525 to 0.694). The overlap between the areas of interest and the breast lesions was low for all the studied methods (median DSC from 4.2% to 38.0%). The AI system with the highest cancer detection performance (AUC = 0.694, CI 0.662-0.726) showed the lowest overlap (DSC = 4.2%) with breast lesions. The areas of interest found by saliency analysis of the AI systems showed poor overlap with breast lesions. These results suggest that AI systems with the highest performance do not solely rely on localized breast lesions for their decision-making in cancer detection; rather, they incorporate information from large image regions. This work contributes to the understanding of the role of breast lesions in cancer detection using AI.

The performance of deep learning on thyroid nodule imaging predicts thyroid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies with independent external test sets

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

It is still controversial whether deep learning (DL) systems add accuracy to thyroid nodule imaging classification based on the recent available evidence. We conducted this study to analyze the current evidence of DL in thyroid nodule imaging diagnosis in both internal and external test sets.

METHODS

Until the end of December 2022, PubMed, IEEE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched. We included primary epidemiological studies using externally validated DL techniques in image-based thyroid nodule appraisal. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022362892).

RESULTS

We evaluated evidence from 17 primary epidemiological studies using externally validated DL techniques in image-based thyroid nodule appraisal. Fourteen studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of these DL algorithms were 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.87-0.90), 0.84 (0.82-0.86), and 0.93 (0.91-0.95), respectively. For the internal validation set, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.91 (0.89-0.93), 0.88 (0.85-0.91), and 0.96 (0.93-0.97), respectively. In the external validation set, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.87 (0.85-0.89), 0.81 (0.77-0.83), and 0.91 (0.88-0.93), respectively. Notably, in subgroup analyses, DL algorithms still demonstrated exceptional diagnostic validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests DL-based imaging shows diagnostic performances comparable to clinicians for differentiating thyroid nodules in both the internal and external test sets.

Application possibilities of artificial intelligence in facial vascularized composite allotransplantation-a narrative review

Facial vascularized composite allotransplantation (FVCA) is an emerging field of reconstructive surgery that represents a dogmatic shift in the surgical treatment of patients with severe facial disfigurements. While conventional reconstructive strategies were previously considered the goldstandard for patients with devastating facial trauma, FVCA has demonstrated promising short- and long-term outcomes. Yet, there remain several obstacles that complicate the integration of FVCA procedures into the standard workflow for facial trauma patients. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been shown to provide targeted and resource-effective solutions for persisting clinical challenges in various specialties. However, there is a paucity of studies elucidating the combination of FVCA and AI to overcome such hurdles. Here, we delineate the application possibilities of AI in the field of FVCA and discuss the use of AI technology for FVCA outcome simulation, diagnosis and prediction of rejection episodes, and malignancy screening. This line of research may serve as a fundament for future studies linking these two revolutionary biotechnologies.

Natural language processing for mental health interventions: a systematic review and research framework

Neuropsychiatric disorders pose a high societal cost, but their treatment is hindered by lack of objective outcomes and fidelity metrics. AI technologies and specifically Natural Language Processing (NLP) have emerged as tools to study mental health interventions (MHI) at the level of their constituent conversations. However, NLP's potential to address clinical and research challenges remains unclear. We therefore conducted a pre-registered systematic review of NLP-MHI studies using PRISMA guidelines (osf.io/s52jh) to evaluate their models, clinical applications, and to identify biases and gaps. Candidate studies (n = 19,756), including peer-reviewed AI conference manuscripts, were collected up to January 2023 through PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ArXiv. A total of 102 articles were included to investigate their computational characteristics (NLP algorithms, audio features, machine learning pipelines, outcome metrics), clinical characteristics (clinical ground truths, study samples, clinical focus), and limitations. Results indicate a rapid growth of NLP MHI studies since 2019, characterized by increased sample sizes and use of large language models. Digital health platforms were the largest providers of MHI data. Ground truth for supervised learning models was based on clinician ratings (n = 31), patient self-report (n = 29) and annotations by raters (n = 26). Text-based features contributed more to model accuracy than audio markers. Patients' clinical presentation (n = 34), response to intervention (n = 11), intervention monitoring (n = 20), providers' characteristics (n = 12), relational dynamics (n = 14), and data preparation (n = 4) were commonly investigated clinical categories. Limitations of reviewed studies included lack of linguistic diversity, limited reproducibility, and population bias. A research framework is developed and validated (NLPxMHI) to assist computational and clinical researchers in addressing the remaining gaps in applying NLP to MHI, with the goal of improving clinical utility, data access, and fairness.

Use of novel artificial intelligence computer-assisted detection (AI-CAD) for screening mammography: an analysis of 17,884 consecutive two-view full-field digital mammography screening exams

BACKGROUND

Novel artificial intelligence computer-assisted detection (AI-CAD) systems based on deep learning (DL) promise to support screen reading.

PURPOSE

To test a DL-AI-CAD system compared to human reading on consecutive screening mammograms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 17,884 consecutive anonymized screening mammograms, double-read from January to November 2018, were processed by the DL-AI-CAD system. AI-CAD reading was considered positive if the AI-CAD case scores exceeded 30 (range = 1-100) and the lesion was correctly marked. Likewise, human reading (R1 or R2, respectively) was considered positive if the lesion was correctly identified and called. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and accuracy data were calculated. Ground truth for benign lesions: absence of malignancy after cancer registry matching (2022); for malignancy: histopathologic proof; evaluation was patient-based.

RESULTS

In total, 114 screen-detected and 17 interval cancers (ICA) occurred. ROC analysis of screen-detected cancers yielded an AUC of 89% for AI-CAD. Sensitivity/specificity was 81.7%/80.2% for AI-CAD; 77.1%/91.7% for R1; 78.6/91.6% for R2. Combining each human reading with AI-CAD was as sensitive as human double-reading (all approximately 88%), but less specific (approximately 75%) compared to human double-reading (approximately 87%). These AI-CAD combinations required consensus readings for twice as many cases as the human combination. Four of 17 ICA exceeded a case score of 30; two of four CAD correctly marked the quadrant of the subsequent ICA.

CONCLUSION

Including ICA cases, this AI-CAD achieved comparable sensitivity to human reading at lower specificity. Combining human reading and AI-CAD allows increasing sensitivity compared to single-reading.

Application of deep learning models for detection of subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the application of deep learning (DL) models for the detection of subdural hematoma (SDH).

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search using relevant keywords. Articles extracted were original studies in which sensitivity and/or specificity were reported. Two different approaches of frequentist and Bayesian inference were applied. For quality and risk of bias assessment we used Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2).

RESULTS

We analyzed 22 articles that included 1,997,749 patients. In the first step, the frequentist method showed a pooled sensitivity of 88.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 83.9% to 92.4%) and a specificity of 97.2% (95% CI 94.6% to 98.6%). In the second step, using Bayesian methods including 11 studies that reported sensitivity and specificity, a sensitivity rate of 86.8% (95% CI: 77.6% to 92.9%) at a specificity level of 86.9% (95% CI: 60.9% to 97.2%) was achieved. The risk of bias assessment was not remarkable using QUADAS-2.

CONCLUSION

DL models might be an appropriate tool for detecting SDHs with a reasonably high sensitivity and specificity.

AI in medical imaging grand challenges: translation from competition to research benefit and patient care

Artificial intelligence (AI), in one form or another, has been a part of medical imaging for decades. The recent evolution of AI into approaches such as deep learning has dramatically accelerated the application of AI across a wide range of radiologic settings. Despite the promises of AI, developers and users of AI technology must be fully aware of its potential biases and pitfalls, and this knowledge must be incorporated throughout the AI system development pipeline that involves training, validation, and testing. Grand challenges offer an opportunity to advance the development of AI methods for targeted applications and provide a mechanism for both directing and facilitating the development of AI systems. In the process, a grand challenge centralizes (with the challenge organizers) the burden of providing a valid benchmark test set to assess performance and generalizability of participants' models and the collection and curation of image metadata, clinical/demographic information, and the required reference standard. The most relevant grand challenges are those designed to maximize the open-science nature of the competition, with code and trained models deposited for future public access. The ultimate goal of AI grand challenges is to foster the translation of AI systems from competition to research benefit and patient care. Rather than reference the many medical imaging grand challenges that have been organized by groups such as MICCAI, RSNA, AAPM, and grand-challenge.org, this review assesses the role of grand challenges in promoting AI technologies for research advancement and for eventual clinical implementation, including their promises and limitations.

"Shortcuts" Causing Bias in Radiology Artificial Intelligence: Causes, Evaluation, and Mitigation

Despite the expert-level performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models for various medical imaging tasks, real-world performance failures with disparate outputs for various subgroups limit the usefulness of AI in improving patients' lives. Many definitions of fairness have been proposed, with discussions of various tensions that arise in the choice of an appropriate metric to use to evaluate bias; for example, should one aim for individual or group fairness? One central observation is that AI models apply "shortcut learning" whereby spurious features (such as chest tubes and portable radiographic markers on intensive care unit chest radiography) on medical images are used for prediction instead of identifying true pathology. Moreover, AI has been shown to have a remarkable ability to detect protected attributes of age, sex, and race, while the same models demonstrate bias against historically underserved subgroups of age, sex, and race in disease diagnosis. Therefore, an AI model may take shortcut predictions from these correlations and subsequently generate an outcome that is biased toward certain subgroups even when protected attributes are not explicitly used as inputs into the model. As a result, these subgroups became nonprivileged subgroups. In this review, the authors discuss the various types of bias from shortcut learning that may occur at different phases of AI model development, including data bias, modeling bias, and inference bias. The authors thereafter summarize various tool kits that can be used to evaluate and mitigate bias and note that these have largely been applied to nonmedical domains and require more evaluation for medical AI. The authors then summarize current techniques for mitigating bias from preprocessing (data-centric solutions) and during model development (computational solutions) and postprocessing (recalibration of learning). Ongoing legal changes where the use of a biased model will be penalized highlight the necessity of understanding, detecting, and mitigating biases from shortcut learning and will require diverse research teams looking at the whole AI pipeline.

Considerations for the application of artificial intelligence in vascular surgical education

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) into everyday use has presented multiple issues for surgical educators to consider. In this article, the authors discuss some of the ethical aspects of academic integrity and the use of AI. These issues include the importance of understanding the current limits of AI and the inherent biases of the technology. The authors further discuss the ethical considerations of the use of AI in surgical training and in clinical use, with an emphasis on vascular surgery.

Calibrating ensembles for scalable uncertainty quantification in deep learning-based medical image segmentation

Uncertainty quantification in automated image analysis is highly desired in many applications. Typically, machine learning models in classification or segmentation are only developed to provide binary answers; however, quantifying the uncertainty of the models can play a critical role for example in active learning or machine human interaction. Uncertainty quantification is especially difficult when using deep learning-based models, which are the state-of-the-art in many imaging applications. The current uncertainty quantification approaches do not scale well in high-dimensional real-world problems. Scalable solutions often rely on classical techniques, such as dropout, during inference or training ensembles of identical models with different random seeds to obtain a posterior distribution. In this paper, we present the following contributions. First, we show that the classical approaches fail to approximate the classification probability. Second, we propose a scalable and intuitive framework for uncertainty quantification in medical image segmentation that yields measurements that approximate the classification probability. Third, we suggest the usage of k-fold cross-validation to overcome the need for held out calibration data. Lastly, we motivate the adoption of our method in active learning, creating pseudo-labels to learn from unlabeled images and human-machine collaboration.

Effect of Benign Biopsy Findings on an Artificial Intelligence-Based Cancer Detector in Screening Mammography: Retrospective Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based cancer detectors (CAD) for mammography are starting to be used for breast cancer screening in radiology departments. It is important to understand how AI CAD systems react to benign lesions, especially those that have been subjected to biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to corroborate the hypothesis that women with previous benign biopsy and cytology assessments would subsequently present increased AI CAD abnormality scores even though they remained healthy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study applying a commercial AI CAD system (Insight MMG, version 1.1.4.3; Lunit Inc) to a cancer-enriched mammography screening data set of 10,889 women (median age 56, range 40-74 years). The AI CAD generated a continuous prediction score for tumor suspicion between 0.00 and 1.00, where 1.00 represented the highest level of suspicion. A binary read (flagged or not flagged) was defined on the basis of a predetermined cutoff threshold (0.40). The flagged median and proportion of AI scores were calculated for women who were healthy, those who had a benign biopsy finding, and those who were diagnosed with breast cancer. For women with a benign biopsy finding, the interval between mammography and the biopsy was used for stratification of AI scores. The effect of increasing age was examined using subgroup analysis and regression modeling.

RESULTS

Of a total of 10,889 women, 234 had a benign biopsy finding before or after screening. The proportions of flagged healthy women were 3.5%, 11%, and 84% for healthy women without a benign biopsy finding, those with a benign biopsy finding, and women with breast cancer, respectively (P<.001). For the 8307 women with complete information, radiologist 1, radiologist 2, and the AI CAD system flagged 8.5%, 6.8%, and 8.5% of examinations of women who had a prior benign biopsy finding. The AI score correlated only with increasing age of the women in the cancer group (P=.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to healthy women without a biopsy, the examined AI CAD system flagged a much larger proportion of women who had or would have a benign biopsy finding based on a radiologist's decision. However, the flagging rate was not higher than that for radiologists. Further research should be focused on training the AI CAD system taking prior biopsy information into account.

Artificial Intelligence Applications in Breast Imaging: Current Status and Future Directions

Attempts to use computers to aid in the detection of breast malignancies date back more than 20 years. Despite significant interest and investment, this has historically led to minimal or no significant improvement in performance and outcomes with traditional computer-aided detection. However, recent advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning are now starting to deliver on the promise of improved performance. There are at present more than 20 FDA-approved AI applications for breast imaging, but adoption and utilization are widely variable and low overall. Breast imaging is unique and has aspects that create both opportunities and challenges for AI development and implementation. Breast cancer screening programs worldwide rely on screening mammography to reduce the morbidity and mortality of breast cancer, and many of the most exciting research projects and available AI applications focus on cancer detection for mammography. There are, however, multiple additional potential applications for AI in breast imaging, including decision support, risk assessment, breast density quantitation, workflow and triage, quality evaluation, response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy assessment, and image enhancement. In this review the current status, availability, and future directions of investigation of these applications are discussed, as well as the opportunities and barriers to more widespread utilization.