Measuring the Impact of AI in the Diagnosis of Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Clinical Vignette Survey Study.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) could support clinicians when diagnosing hospitalized patients; however, systematic bias in AI models could worsen clinician diagnostic accuracy. Recent regulatory guidance has called for AI models to include explanations to mitigate errors made by models, but the effectiveness of this strategy has not been established. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of systematically biased AI on clinician diagnostic accuracy and to determine if image-based AI model explanations can mitigate model errors. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical vignette survey study administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 US states involving hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Interventions: Clinicians were shown 9 clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians were then asked to determine the likelihood of pneumonia, heart failure, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as the underlying cause(s) of each patient's acute respiratory failure. To establish baseline diagnostic accuracy, clinicians were shown 2 vignettes without AI model input. Clinicians were then randomized to see 6 vignettes with AI model input with or without AI model explanations. Among these 6 vignettes, 3 vignettes included standard-model predictions, and 3 vignettes included systematically biased model predictions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Results: Median participant age was 34 years (IQR, 31-39) and 241 (57.7%) were female. Four hundred fifty-seven clinicians were randomized and completed at least 1 vignette, with 231 randomized to AI model predictions without explanations, and 226 randomized to AI model predictions with explanations. Clinicians' baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73.0% (95% CI, 68.3% to 77.8%) for the 3 diagnoses. When shown a standard AI model without explanations, clinician accuracy increased over baseline by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.2) and by 4.4 percentage points (95% CI, 2.0 to 6.9) when clinicians were also shown AI model explanations. Systematically biased AI model predictions decreased clinician accuracy by 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 7.2 to 15.5) compared with baseline and providing biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased clinician accuracy by 9.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.9 to 13.2) compared with baseline, representing a nonsignificant improvement of 2.3 percentage points (95% CI, -2.7 to 7.2) compared with the systematically biased AI model. Conclusions and Relevance: Although standard AI models improve diagnostic accuracy, systematically biased AI models reduced diagnostic accuracy, and commonly used image-based AI model explanations did not mitigate this harmful effect. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06098950.

Stratification by Tumor Grade Groups in a Holistic Evaluation of Machine Learning for Brain Tumor Segmentation.

Accurate and consistent segmentation plays an important role in the diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring of both High Grade Glioma (HGG), including Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), and Low Grade Glioma (LGG). Accuracy of segmentation can be affected by the imaging presentation of glioma, which greatly varies between the two tumor grade groups. In recent years, researchers have used Machine Learning (ML) to segment tumor rapidly and consistently, as compared to manual segmentation. However, existing ML validation relies heavily on computing summary statistics and rarely tests the generalizability of an algorithm on clinically heterogeneous data. In this work, our goal is to investigate how to holistically evaluate the performance of ML algorithms on a brain tumor segmentation task. We address the need for rigorous evaluation of ML algorithms and present four axes of model evaluation-diagnostic performance, model confidence, robustness, and data quality. We perform a comprehensive evaluation of a glioma segmentation ML algorithm by stratifying data by specific tumor grade groups (GBM and LGG) and evaluate these algorithms on each of the four axes. The main takeaways of our work are-(1) ML algorithms need to be evaluated on out-of-distribution data to assess generalizability, reflective of tumor heterogeneity. (2) Segmentation metrics alone are limited to evaluate the errors made by ML algorithms and their describe their consequences. (3) Adoption of tools in other domains such as robustness (adversarial attacks) and model uncertainty (prediction intervals) lead to a more comprehensive performance evaluation. Such a holistic evaluation framework could shed light on an algorithm's clinical utility and help it evolve into a more clinically valuable tool.