Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms.
Schaffter, Thomas; Buist, Diana S M; Lee, Christoph I; Nikulin, Yaroslav; Ribli, Dezso; Guan, Yuanfang; Lotter, William; Jie, Zequn; Du, Hao; Wang, Sijia; Feng, Jiashi; Feng, Mengling; Kim, Hyo-Eun; Albiol, Francisco; Albiol, Alberto; Morrell, Stephen; Wojna, Zbigniew; Ahsen, Mehmet Eren; Asif, Umar; Jimeno Yepes, Antonio; Yohanandan, Shivanthan; Rabinovici-Cohen, Simona; Yi, Darvin; Hoff, Bruce; Yu, Thomas; Chaibub Neto, Elias; Rubin, Daniel L; Lindholm, Peter; Margolies, Laurie R; McBride, Russell Bailey; Rothstein, Joseph H; Sieh, Weiva; Ben-Ari, Rami; Harrer, Stefan; Trister, Andrew; Friend, Stephen; Norman, Thea; Sahiner, Berkman; Strand, Fredrik; Guinney, Justin; Stolovitzky, Gustavo; Mackey, Lester; Cahoon, Joyce; Shen, Li; Sohn, Jae Ho; Trivedi, Hari; Shen, Yiqiu; Buturovic, Ljubomir; Pereira, Jose Costa; Cardoso, Jaime S.
Afiliación
  • Schaffter T; Computational Oncology, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
  • Buist DSM; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
  • Lee CI; University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
  • Nikulin Y; Therapixel, Paris, France.
  • Ribli D; Department of Physics of Complex Systems, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
  • Guan Y; Department of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  • Lotter W; DeepHealth Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Jie Z; Tencent AI Lab, Shenzhen, China.
  • Du H; National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Wang S; Integrated Health Information Systems Pte Ltd, Singapore.
  • Feng J; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Feng M; National University Health System, Singapore.
  • Kim HE; Lunit Inc, Seoul, Korea.
  • Albiol F; Instituto de Física Corpuscular (IFIC), CSIC-Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.
  • Albiol A; Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Valenciana, Spain.
  • Morrell S; Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, Bloomsbury, London, United Kingdom.
  • Wojna Z; Tensorflight Inc, Mountain View, California.
  • Ahsen ME; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana.
  • Asif U; IBM Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Jimeno Yepes A; IBM Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Yohanandan S; IBM Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Rabinovici-Cohen S; IBM Research Haifa, Haifa University Campus, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel.
  • Yi D; Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Hoff B; Computational Oncology, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
  • Yu T; Computational Oncology, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
  • Chaibub Neto E; Computational Oncology, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
  • Rubin DL; Department of Biomedical Data Science, Radiology, and Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford University, Stanford, California.
  • Lindholm P; Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Margolies LR; Department of Diagnostic, Molecular and Interventional Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
  • McBride RB; Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-Based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
  • Rothstein JH; Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
  • Sieh W; Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Department of Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
  • Ben-Ari R; IBM Research Haifa, Haifa University Campus, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel.
  • Harrer S; IBM Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Trister A; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
  • Friend S; Computational Oncology, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
  • Norman T; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington.
  • Sahiner B; Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
  • Strand F; Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Guinney J; Breast Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Stolovitzky G; Computational Oncology, Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, Washington.
  • Cahoon J; Microsoft New England Research and Development Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Shen L; North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
  • Sohn JH; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
  • Trivedi H; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
  • Shen Y; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Buturovic L; New York University, New York.
  • Pereira JC; Clinical Persona, East Palo Alto, California.
  • Cardoso JS; Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(3): e200265, 2020 03 02.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32119094
ABSTRACT
Importance Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives.

Objective:

To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Design, Setting, and

Participants:

In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measurements Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated.

Results:

Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Mama / Mamografía / Interpretación de Imagen Asistida por Computador / Radiólogos / Aprendizaje Profundo Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte / Europa Idioma: En Revista: JAMA Netw Open Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Mama / Mamografía / Interpretación de Imagen Asistida por Computador / Radiólogos / Aprendizaje Profundo Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte / Europa Idioma: En Revista: JAMA Netw Open Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article