OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that radiologists, with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), are able to better classify screening mammograms into the correct breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category, and as a secondary objective, to explore the impact of AI on cancer detection and mammogram interpretation time. METHODS: A multi-reader, multi-case study with cross-over design, was performed, including 314 mammograms. Twelve radiologists interpreted the examinations in two sessions delayed by a 4 weeks wash-out period with and without AI support. For each breast of each mammogram, they had to mark the most suspicious lesion (if any) and assign it with a forced BI-RADS category and a level of suspicion or "continuous BI-RADS 100". Cohen's kappa correlation coefficient evaluating the inter-observer agreement for BI-RADS category per breast, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), were used as metrics and analyzed. RESULTS: On average, the quadratic kappa coefficient increased significantly when using AI for all readers [κ = 0.549, 95% CI (0.528-0.571) without AI and κ = 0.626, 95% CI (0.607-0.6455) with AI]. AUC was significantly improved when using AI (0.74 vs 0.77, p = 0.004). Reading time was not significantly affected for all readers (106 s without AI and vs 102 s with AI; p = 0.754). CONCLUSIONS: When using AI, radiologists were able to better assign mammograms with the correct BI-RADS category without slowing down the interpretation time.
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that radiologists, with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), are able to better classify screening mammograms into the correct breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category, and as a secondary objective, to explore the impact of AI on cancer detection and mammogram interpretation time. METHODS: A multi-reader, multi-case study with cross-over design, was performed, including 314 mammograms. Twelve radiologists interpreted the examinations in two sessions delayed by a 4 weeks wash-out period with and without AI support. For each breast of each mammogram, they had to mark the most suspicious lesion (if any) and assign it with a forced BI-RADS category and a level of suspicion or "continuous BI-RADS 100". Cohen's kappa correlation coefficient evaluating the inter-observer agreement for BI-RADS category per breast, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), were used as metrics and analyzed. RESULTS: On average, the quadratic kappa coefficient increased significantly when using AI for all readers [κ = 0.549, 95% CI (0.528-0.571) without AI and κ = 0.626, 95% CI (0.607-0.6455) with AI]. AUC was significantly improved when using AI (0.74 vs 0.77, p = 0.004). Reading time was not significantly affected for all readers (106 s without AI and vs 102 s with AI; p = 0.754). CONCLUSIONS: When using AI, radiologists were able to better assign mammograms with the correct BI-RADS category without slowing down the interpretation time.
Authors: Emily B Ambinder; Lisa A Mullen; Eniola Falomo; Kelly Myers; Jessica Hung; Bonmyong Lee; Susan C Harvey Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-09-27 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Thijs Kooi; Geert Litjens; Bram van Ginneken; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Clara I Sánchez; Ritse Mann; Ard den Heeten; Nico Karssemeijer Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Karin Dembrower; Erik Wåhlin; Yue Liu; Mattie Salim; Kevin Smith; Peter Lindholm; Martin Eklund; Fredrik Strand Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2020-09
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Robert D Wellman; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Serena Pacilè; January Lopez; Pauline Chone; Thomas Bertinotti; Jean Marie Grouin; Pierre Fillard Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-11-04
Authors: Alyssa T Watanabe; Vivian Lim; Hoanh X Vu; Richard Chim; Eric Weise; Jenna Liu; William G Bradley; Christopher E Comstock Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Scott Mayer McKinney; Marcin Sieniek; Varun Godbole; Jonathan Godwin; Natasha Antropova; Hutan Ashrafian; Trevor Back; Mary Chesus; Greg S Corrado; Ara Darzi; Mozziyar Etemadi; Florencia Garcia-Vicente; Fiona J Gilbert; Mark Halling-Brown; Demis Hassabis; Sunny Jansen; Alan Karthikesalingam; Christopher J Kelly; Dominic King; Joseph R Ledsam; David Melnick; Hormuz Mostofi; Lily Peng; Joshua Jay Reicher; Bernardino Romera-Paredes; Richard Sidebottom; Mustafa Suleyman; Daniel Tse; Kenneth C Young; Jeffrey De Fauw; Shravya Shetty Journal: Nature Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 49.962