Literature DB >> 33367670

Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: primary care provider preferences.

Nathaniel Hendrix1, Brett Hauber1,2, Christoph I Lee3,4,5, Aasthaa Bansal1, David L Veenstra1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being proposed for use in medicine, including breast cancer screening (BCS). Little is known, however, about referring primary care providers' (PCPs') preferences for this technology.
METHODS: We identified the most important attributes of AI BCS for ordering PCPs using qualitative interviews: sensitivity, specificity, radiologist involvement, understandability of AI decision-making, supporting evidence, and diversity of training data. We invited US-based PCPs to participate in an internet-based experiment designed to force participants to trade off among the attributes of hypothetical AI BCS products. Responses were analyzed with random parameters logit and latent class models to assess how different attributes affect the choice to recommend AI-enhanced screening.
RESULTS: Ninety-one PCPs participated. Sensitivity was most important, and most PCPs viewed radiologist participation in mammography interpretation as important. Other important attributes were specificity, understandability of AI decision-making, and diversity of data. We identified 3 classes of respondents: "Sensitivity First" (41%) found sensitivity to be more than twice as important as other attributes; "Against AI Autonomy" (24%) wanted radiologists to confirm every image; "Uncertain Trade-Offs" (35%) viewed most attributes as having similar importance. A majority (76%) accepted the use of AI in a "triage" role that would allow it to filter out likely negatives without radiologist confirmation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Sensitivity was the most important attribute overall, but other key attributes should be addressed to produce clinically acceptable products. We also found that most PCPs accept the use of AI to make determinations about likely negative mammograms without radiologist confirmation.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  artificial intelligence; breast cancer screening; conjoint analysis; discrete choice; primary care

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33367670      PMCID: PMC8200265          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  35 in total

1.  What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  L van Dam; L Hol; E W de Bekker-Grob; E W Steyerberg; E J Kuipers; J D F Habbema; M L Essink-Bot; M E van Leerdam
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Potential Liability for Physicians Using Artificial Intelligence.

Authors:  W Nicholson Price; Sara Gerke; I Glenn Cohen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  What do senior physicians think about AI and clinical decision support systems: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of data from specialty societies.

Authors:  Haroldas Petkus; Jan Hoogewerf; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 4.  Computed-aided diagnosis (CAD) in the detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  C Dromain; B Boyer; R Ferré; S Canale; S Delaloge; C Balleyguier
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making.

Authors:  Martin P Ho; Juan Marcos Gonzalez; Herbert P Lerner; Carolyn Y Neuland; Joyce M Whang; Michelle McMurry-Heath; A Brett Hauber; Telba Irony
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Modeling Heterogeneity in Patients' Preferences for Psoriasis Treatments in a Multicountry Study: A Comparison Between Random-Parameters Logit and Latent Class Approaches.

Authors:  Marco Boeri; Daniel Saure; Alexander Schacht; Elisabeth Riedl; Brett Hauber
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Laura Ichikawa; Robert A Smith; Diana S M Buist; Patricia A Carney; Berta Geller; Barbara Monsees; Tracy Onega; Robert Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 8.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  F Reed Johnson; Emily Lancsar; Deborah Marshall; Vikram Kilambi; Axel Mühlbacher; Dean A Regier; Brian W Bresnahan; Barbara Kanninen; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies.

Authors:  Myura Nagendran; Yang Chen; Christopher A Lovejoy; Anthony C Gordon; Matthieu Komorowski; Hugh Harvey; Eric J Topol; John P A Ioannidis; Gary S Collins; Mahiben Maruthappu
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-03-25
View more
  8 in total

1.  Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rebekah Hall; Antonieta Medina-Lara; Willie Hamilton; Anne E Spencer
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Oncologist phenotypes and associations with response to a machine learning-based intervention to increase advance care planning: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Eric Li; Christopher Manz; Manqing Liu; Jinbo Chen; Corey Chivers; Jennifer Braun; Lynn Mara Schuchter; Pallavi Kumar; Mitesh S Patel; Lawrence N Shulman; Ravi B Parikh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 3.752

3.  Comment on Patel, B.; Makaryus, A.N. Artificial Intelligence Advances in the World of Cardiovascular Imaging. Healthcare 2022, 10, 154.

Authors:  Daniele Giansanti
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-14

Review 4.  Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.

Authors:  David Brain; Amarzaya Jadambaa; Sanjeewa Kularatna
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 2.908

5.  The Artificial Intelligence in Digital Radiology: Part 2: Towards an Investigation of acceptance and consensus on the Insiders.

Authors:  Francesco Di Basilio; Gianluca Esposisto; Lisa Monoscalco; Daniele Giansanti
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-14

6.  Information Security in Medical Robotics: A Survey on the Level of Training, Awareness and Use of the Physiotherapist.

Authors:  Lisa Monoscalco; Rossella Simeoni; Giovanni Maccioni; Daniele Giansanti
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-14

7.  Public patient views of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A nominal group technique study.

Authors:  Omar Musbahi; Labib Syed; Peter Le Feuvre; Justin Cobb; Gareth Jones
Journal:  Digit Health       Date:  2021-12-15

Review 8.  The Artificial Intelligence in Digital Radiology: Part 1: The Challenges, Acceptance and Consensus.

Authors:  Daniele Giansanti; Francesco Di Basilio
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-10
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.