Predicting cardiovascular disease risk using photoplethysmography and deep learning.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are responsible for a large proportion of premature deaths in low- and middle-income countries. Early CVD detection and intervention is critical in these populations, yet many existing CVD risk scores require a physical examination or lab measurements, which can be challenging in such health systems due to limited accessibility. We investigated the potential to use photoplethysmography (PPG), a sensing technology available on most smartphones that can potentially enable large-scale screening at low cost, for CVD risk prediction. We developed a deep learning PPG-based CVD risk score (DLS) to predict the probability of having major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death) within ten years, given only age, sex, smoking status and PPG as predictors. We compare the DLS with the office-based refit-WHO score, which adopts the shared predictors from WHO and Globorisk scores (age, sex, smoking status, height, weight and systolic blood pressure) but refitted on the UK Biobank (UKB) cohort. All models were trained on a development dataset (141,509 participants) and evaluated on a geographically separate test (54,856 participants) dataset, both from UKB. DLS's C-statistic (71.1%, 95% CI 69.9-72.4) is non-inferior to office-based refit-WHO score (70.9%, 95% CI 69.7-72.2; non-inferiority margin of 2.5%, p<0.01) in the test dataset. The calibration of the DLS is satisfactory, with a 1.8% mean absolute calibration error. Adding DLS features to the office-based score increases the C-statistic by 1.0% (95% CI 0.6-1.4). DLS predicts ten-year MACE risk comparable with the office-based refit-WHO score. Interpretability analyses suggest that the DLS-extracted features are related to PPG waveform morphology and are independent of heart rate. Our study provides a proof-of-concept and suggests the potential of a PPG-based approach strategies for community-based primary prevention in resource-limited regions.

Health equity assessment of machine learning performance (HEAL): a framework and dermatology AI model case study.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has repeatedly been shown to encode historical inequities in healthcare. We aimed to develop a framework to quantitatively assess the performance equity of health AI technologies and to illustrate its utility via a case study. Methods: Here, we propose a methodology to assess whether health AI technologies prioritise performance for patient populations experiencing worse outcomes, that is complementary to existing fairness metrics. We developed the Health Equity Assessment of machine Learning performance (HEAL) framework designed to quantitatively assess the performance equity of health AI technologies via a four-step interdisciplinary process to understand and quantify domain-specific criteria, and the resulting HEAL metric. As an illustrative case study (analysis conducted between October 2022 and January 2023), we applied the HEAL framework to a dermatology AI model. A set of 5420 teledermatology cases (store-and-forward cases from patients of 20 years or older, submitted from primary care providers in the USA and skin cancer clinics in Australia), enriched for diversity in age, sex and race/ethnicity, was used to retrospectively evaluate the AI model's HEAL metric, defined as the likelihood that the AI model performs better for subpopulations with worse average health outcomes as compared to others. The likelihood that AI performance was anticorrelated to pre-existing health outcomes was estimated using bootstrap methods as the probability that the negated Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (i.e., "R") was greater than zero. Positive values of R suggest that subpopulations with poorer health outcomes have better AI model performance. Thus, the HEAL metric, defined as p (R >0), measures how likely the AI technology is to prioritise performance for subpopulations with worse average health outcomes as compared to others (presented as a percentage below). Health outcomes were quantified as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) when grouping by sex and age, and years of life lost (YLLs) when grouping by race/ethnicity. AI performance was measured as top-3 agreement with the reference diagnosis from a panel of 3 dermatologists per case. Findings: Across all dermatologic conditions, the HEAL metric was 80.5% for prioritizing AI performance of racial/ethnic subpopulations based on YLLs, and 92.1% and 0.0% respectively for prioritizing AI performance of sex and age subpopulations based on DALYs. Certain dermatologic conditions were significantly associated with greater AI model performance compared to a reference category of less common conditions. For skin cancer conditions, the HEAL metric was 73.8% for prioritizing AI performance of age subpopulations based on DALYs. Interpretation: Analysis using the proposed HEAL framework showed that the dermatology AI model prioritised performance for race/ethnicity, sex (all conditions) and age (cancer conditions) subpopulations with respect to pre-existing health disparities. More work is needed to investigate ways of promoting equitable AI performance across age for non-cancer conditions and to better understand how AI models can contribute towards improving equity in health outcomes. Funding: Google LLC.

Assistive AI in Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Multinational Study in the United States and Japan.

Purpose To evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI) assistant for lung cancer screening on multinational clinical workflows. Materials and Methods An AI assistant for lung cancer screening was evaluated on two retrospective randomized multireader multicase studies where 627 (141 cancer-positive cases) low-dose chest CT cases were each read twice (with and without AI assistance) by experienced thoracic radiologists (six U.S.-based or six Japan-based radiologists), resulting in a total of 7524 interpretations. Positive cases were defined as those within 2 years before a pathology-confirmed lung cancer diagnosis. Negative cases were defined as those without any subsequent cancer diagnosis for at least 2 years and were enriched for a spectrum of diverse nodules. The studies measured the readers' level of suspicion (on a 0-100 scale), country-specific screening system scoring categories, and management recommendations. Evaluation metrics included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for level of suspicion and sensitivity and specificity of recall recommendations. Results With AI assistance, the radiologists' AUC increased by 0.023 (0.70 to 0.72; P = .02) for the U.S. study and by 0.023 (0.93 to 0.96; P = .18) for the Japan study. Scoring system specificity for actionable findings increased 5.5% (57% to 63%; P < .001) for the U.S. study and 6.7% (23% to 30%; P < .001) for the Japan study. There was no evidence of a difference in corresponding sensitivity between unassisted and AI-assisted reads for the U.S. (67.3% to 67.5%; P = .88) and Japan (98% to 100%; P > .99) studies. Corresponding stand-alone AI AUC system performance was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.81) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.97) for the U.S.- and Japan-based datasets, respectively. Conclusion The concurrent AI interface improved lung cancer screening specificity in both U.S.- and Japan-based reader studies, meriting further study in additional international screening environments. Keywords: Assistive Artificial Intelligence, Lung Cancer Screening, CT Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Predicting lymph node metastasis from primary tumor histology and clinicopathologic factors in colorectal cancer using deep learning.

BACKGROUND: Presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) influences prognosis and clinical decision-making in colorectal cancer. However, detection of LNM is variable and depends on a number of external factors. Deep learning has shown success in computational pathology, but has struggled to boost performance when combined with known predictors. METHODS: Machine-learned features are created by clustering deep learning embeddings of small patches of tumor in colorectal cancer via k-means, and then selecting the top clusters that add predictive value to a logistic regression model when combined with known baseline clinicopathological variables. We then analyze performance of logistic regression models trained with and without these machine-learned features in combination with the baseline variables. RESULTS: The machine-learned extracted features provide independent signal for the presence of LNM (AUROC: 0.638, 95% CI: [0.590, 0.683]). Furthermore, the machine-learned features add predictive value to the set of 6 clinicopathologic variables in an external validation set (likelihood ratio test, p < 0.00032; AUROC: 0.740, 95% CI: [0.701, 0.780]). A model incorporating these features can also further risk-stratify patients with and without identified metastasis (p < 0.001 for both stage II and stage III). CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates an effective approach to combine deep learning with established clinicopathologic factors in order to identify independently informative features associated with LNM. Further work building on these specific results may have important impact in prognostication and therapeutic decision making for LNM. Additionally, this general computational approach may prove useful in other contexts.

When colorectal cancers spread to the lymph nodes, it can indicate a poorer prognosis. However, detecting lymph node metastasis (spread) can be difficult and depends on a number of factors such as how samples are taken and processed. Here, we show that machine learning, which involves computer software learning from patterns in data, can predict lymph node metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer from the microscopic appearance of their primary tumor and the clinical characteristics of the patients. We also show that the same approach can predict patient survival. With further work, our approach may help clinicians to inform patients about their prognosis and decide on appropriate treatments.

Pathologist Validation of a Machine Learning-Derived Feature for Colon Cancer Risk Stratification.

Importance: Identifying new prognostic features in colon cancer has the potential to refine histopathologic review and inform patient care. Although prognostic artificial intelligence systems have recently demonstrated significant risk stratification for several cancer types, studies have not yet shown that the machine learning-derived features associated with these prognostic artificial intelligence systems are both interpretable and usable by pathologists. Objective: To evaluate whether pathologist scoring of a histopathologic feature previously identified by machine learning is associated with survival among patients with colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used deidentified, archived colorectal cancer cases from January 2013 to December 2015 from the University of Milano-Bicocca. All available histologic slides from 258 consecutive colon adenocarcinoma cases were reviewed from December 2021 to February 2022 by 2 pathologists, who conducted semiquantitative scoring for tumor adipose feature (TAF), which was previously identified via a prognostic deep learning model developed with an independent colorectal cancer cohort. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prognostic value of TAF for overall survival and disease-specific survival as measured by univariable and multivariable regression analyses. Interpathologist agreement in TAF scoring was also evaluated. Results: A total of 258 colon adenocarcinoma histopathologic cases from 258 patients (138 men [53%]; median age, 67 years [IQR, 65-81 years]) with stage II (n = 119) or stage III (n = 139) cancer were included. Tumor adipose feature was identified in 120 cases (widespread in 63 cases, multifocal in 31, and unifocal in 26). For overall survival analysis after adjustment for tumor stage, TAF was independently prognostic in 2 ways: TAF as a binary feature (presence vs absence: hazard ratio [HR] for presence of TAF, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.07-2.25]; P = .02) and TAF as a semiquantitative categorical feature (HR for widespread TAF, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.23-2.85]; P = .004). Interpathologist agreement for widespread TAF vs lower categories (absent, unifocal, or multifocal) was 90%, corresponding to a κ metric at this threshold of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.58-0.80). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, pathologists were able to learn and reproducibly score for TAF, providing significant risk stratification on this independent data set. Although additional work is warranted to understand the biological significance of this feature and to establish broadly reproducible TAF scoring, this work represents the first validation to date of human expert learning from machine learning in pathology. Specifically, this validation demonstrates that a computationally identified histologic feature can represent a human-identifiable, prognostic feature with the potential for integration into pathology practice.

Deep learning models for histologic grading of breast cancer and association with disease prognosis.

Histologic grading of breast cancer involves review and scoring of three well-established morphologic features: mitotic count, nuclear pleomorphism, and tubule formation. Taken together, these features form the basis of the Nottingham Grading System which is used to inform breast cancer characterization and prognosis. In this study, we develop deep learning models to perform histologic scoring of all three components using digitized hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides containing invasive breast carcinoma. We first evaluate model performance using pathologist-based reference standards for each component. To complement this typical approach to evaluation, we further evaluate the deep learning models via prognostic analyses. The individual component models perform at or above published benchmarks for algorithm-based grading approaches, achieving high concordance rates with pathologist grading. Further, prognostic performance using deep learning-based grading is on par with that of pathologists performing review of matched slides. By providing scores for each component feature, the deep-learning based approach also provides the potential to identify the grading components contributing most to prognostic value. This may enable optimized prognostic models, opportunities to improve access to consistent grading, and approaches to better understand the links between histologic features and clinical outcomes in breast cancer.

Artificial intelligence for phase recognition in complex laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The potential role and benefits of AI in surgery has yet to be determined. This study is a first step in developing an AI system for minimizing adverse events and improving patient's safety. We developed an Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm and evaluated its performance in recognizing surgical phases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) videos spanning a range of complexities. METHODS: A set of 371 LC videos with various complexity levels and containing adverse events was collected from five hospitals. Two expert surgeons segmented each video into 10 phases including Calot's triangle dissection and clipping and cutting. For each video, adverse events were also annotated when present (major bleeding; gallbladder perforation; major bile leakage; and incidental finding) and complexity level (on a scale of 1-5) was also recorded. The dataset was then split in an 80:20 ratio (294 and 77 videos), stratified by complexity, hospital, and adverse events to train and test the AI model, respectively. The AI-surgeon agreement was then compared to the agreement between surgeons. RESULTS: The mean accuracy of the AI model for surgical phase recognition was 89% [95% CI 87.1%, 90.6%], comparable to the mean inter-annotator agreement of 90% [95% CI 89.4%, 90.5%]. The model's accuracy was inversely associated with procedure complexity, decreasing from 92% (complexity level 1) to 88% (complexity level 3) to 81% (complexity level 5). CONCLUSION: The AI model successfully identified surgical phases in both simple and complex LC procedures. Further validation and system training is warranted to evaluate its potential applications such as to increase patient safety during surgery.

Deep Learning to Detect OCT-derived Diabetic Macular Edema from Color Retinal Photographs: A Multicenter Validation Study.

PURPOSE: To validate the generalizability of a deep learning system (DLS) that detects diabetic macular edema (DME) from 2-dimensional color fundus photographs (CFP), for which the reference standard for retinal thickness and fluid presence is derived from 3-dimensional OCT. DESIGN: Retrospective validation of a DLS across international datasets. PARTICIPANTS: Paired CFP and OCT of patients from diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening programs or retina clinics. The DLS was developed using data sets from Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States and validated using 3060 unique eyes from 1582 patients across screening populations in Australia, India, and Thailand. The DLS was separately validated in 698 eyes from 537 screened patients in the United Kingdom with mild DR and suspicion of DME based on CFP. METHODS: The DLS was trained using DME labels from OCT. The presence of DME was based on retinal thickening or intraretinal fluid. The DLS's performance was compared with expert grades of maculopathy and to a previous proof-of-concept version of the DLS. We further simulated the integration of the current DLS into an algorithm trained to detect DR from CFP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The superiority of specificity and noninferiority of sensitivity of the DLS for the detection of center-involving DME, using device-specific thresholds, compared with experts. RESULTS: The primary analysis in a combined data set spanning Australia, India, and Thailand showed the DLS had 80% specificity and 81% sensitivity, compared with expert graders, who had 59% specificity and 70% sensitivity. Relative to human experts, the DLS had significantly higher specificity (P = 0.008) and noninferior sensitivity (P < 0.001). In the data set from the United Kingdom, the DLS had a specificity of 80% (P < 0.001 for specificity of >50%) and a sensitivity of 100% (P = 0.02 for sensitivity of > 90%). CONCLUSIONS: The DLS can generalize to multiple international populations with an accuracy exceeding that of experts. The clinical value of this DLS to reduce false-positive referrals, thus decreasing the burden on specialist eye care, warrants a prospective evaluation.

Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: the PANDA challenge.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promise for diagnosing prostate cancer in biopsies. However, results have been limited to individual studies, lacking validation in multinational settings. Competitions have been shown to be accelerators for medical imaging innovations, but their impact is hindered by lack of reproducibility and independent validation. With this in mind, we organized the PANDA challenge-the largest histopathology competition to date, joined by 1,290 developers-to catalyze development of reproducible AI algorithms for Gleason grading using 10,616 digitized prostate biopsies. We validated that a diverse set of submitted algorithms reached pathologist-level performance on independent cross-continental cohorts, fully blinded to the algorithm developers. On United States and European external validation sets, the algorithms achieved agreements of 0.862 (quadratically weighted κ, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.840-0.884) and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.835-0.900) with expert uropathologists. Successful generalization across different patient populations, laboratories and reference standards, achieved by a variety of algorithmic approaches, warrants evaluating AI-based Gleason grading in prospective clinical trials.

Development and Assessment of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Tool for Skin Condition Diagnosis by Primary Care Physicians and Nurse Practitioners in Teledermatology Practices.

Importance: Most dermatologic cases are initially evaluated by nondermatologists such as primary care physicians (PCPs) or nurse practitioners (NPs). Objective: To evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool that assists with diagnoses of dermatologic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multiple-reader, multiple-case diagnostic study developed an AI-based tool and evaluated its utility. Primary care physicians and NPs retrospectively reviewed an enriched set of cases representing 120 different skin conditions. Randomization was used to ensure each clinician reviewed each case either with or without AI assistance; each clinician alternated between batches of 50 cases in each modality. The reviews occurred from February 21 to April 28, 2020. Data were analyzed from May 26, 2020, to January 27, 2021. Exposures: An AI-based assistive tool for interpreting clinical images and associated medical history. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary analysis evaluated agreement with reference diagnoses provided by a panel of 3 dermatologists for PCPs and NPs. Secondary analyses included diagnostic accuracy for biopsy-confirmed cases, biopsy and referral rates, review time, and diagnostic confidence. Results: Forty board-certified clinicians, including 20 PCPs (14 women [70.0%]; mean experience, 11.3 [range, 2-32] years) and 20 NPs (18 women [90.0%]; mean experience, 13.1 [range, 2-34] years) reviewed 1048 retrospective cases (672 female [64.2%]; median age, 43 [interquartile range, 30-56] years; 41 920 total reviews) from a teledermatology practice serving 11 sites and provided 0 to 5 differential diagnoses per case (mean [SD], 1.6 [0.7]). The PCPs were located across 12 states, and the NPs practiced in primary care without physician supervision across 9 states. The NPs had a mean of 13.1 (range, 2-34) years of experience and practiced in primary care without physician supervision across 9 states. Artificial intelligence assistance was significantly associated with higher agreement with reference diagnoses. For PCPs, the increase in diagnostic agreement was 10% (95% CI, 8%-11%; P < .001), from 48% to 58%; for NPs, the increase was 12% (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001), from 46% to 58%. In secondary analyses, agreement with biopsy-obtained diagnosis categories of maglignant, precancerous, or benign increased by 3% (95% CI, -1% to 7%) for PCPs and by 8% (95% CI, 3%-13%) for NPs. Rates of desire for biopsies decreased by 1% (95% CI, 0-3%) for PCPs and 2% (95% CI, 1%-3%) for NPs; the rate of desire for referrals decreased by 3% (95% CI, 1%-4%) for PCPs and NPs. Diagnostic agreement on cases not indicated for a dermatologist referral increased by 10% (95% CI, 8%-12%) for PCPs and 12% (95% CI, 10%-14%) for NPs, and median review time increased slightly by 5 (95% CI, 0-8) seconds for PCPs and 7 (95% CI, 5-10) seconds for NPs per case. Conclusions and Relevance: Artificial intelligence assistance was associated with improved diagnoses by PCPs and NPs for 1 in every 8 to 10 cases, indicating potential for improving the quality of dermatologic care.

Interpretable survival prediction for colorectal cancer using deep learning.

Deriving interpretable prognostic features from deep-learning-based prognostic histopathology models remains a challenge. In this study, we developed a deep learning system (DLS) for predicting disease-specific survival for stage II and III colorectal cancer using 3652 cases (27,300 slides). When evaluated on two validation datasets containing 1239 cases (9340 slides) and 738 cases (7140 slides), respectively, the DLS achieved a 5-year disease-specific survival AUC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.66-0.73) and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64-0.72), and added significant predictive value to a set of nine clinicopathologic features. To interpret the DLS, we explored the ability of different human-interpretable features to explain the variance in DLS scores. We observed that clinicopathologic features such as T-category, N-category, and grade explained a small fraction of the variance in DLS scores (R2 = 18% in both validation sets). Next, we generated human-interpretable histologic features by clustering embeddings from a deep-learning-based image-similarity model and showed that they explained the majority of the variance (R2 of 73-80%). Furthermore, the clustering-derived feature most strongly associated with high DLS scores was also highly prognostic in isolation. With a distinct visual appearance (poorly differentiated tumor cell clusters adjacent to adipose tissue), this feature was identified by annotators with 87.0-95.5% accuracy. Our approach can be used to explain predictions from a prognostic deep learning model and uncover potentially-novel prognostic features that can be reliably identified by people for future validation studies.

Predicting prostate cancer specific-mortality with artificial intelligence-based Gleason grading.

Background: Gleason grading of prostate cancer is an important prognostic factor, but suffers from poor reproducibility, particularly among non-subspecialist pathologists. Although artificial intelligence (A.I.) tools have demonstrated Gleason grading on-par with expert pathologists, it remains an open question whether and to what extent A.I. grading translates to better prognostication. Methods: In this study, we developed a system to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality via A.I.-based Gleason grading and subsequently evaluated its ability to risk-stratify patients on an independent retrospective cohort of 2807 prostatectomy cases from a single European center with 5-25 years of follow-up (median: 13, interquartile range 9-17). Results: Here, we show that the A.I.'s risk scores produced a C-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87) for prostate cancer-specific mortality. Upon discretizing these risk scores into risk groups analogous to pathologist Grade Groups (GG), the A.I. has a C-index of 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.85). On the subset of cases with a GG provided in the original pathology report (n = 1517), the A.I.'s C-indices are 0.87 and 0.85 for continuous and discrete grading, respectively, compared to 0.79 (95% CI 0.71-0.86) for GG obtained from the reports. These represent improvements of 0.08 (95% CI 0.01-0.15) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.00-0.14), respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that A.I.-based Gleason grading can lead to effective risk stratification, and warrants further evaluation for improving disease management.

Determining breast cancer biomarker status and associated morphological features using deep learning.

Background: Breast cancer management depends on biomarkers including estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ER/PR/HER2). Though existing scoring systems are widely used and well-validated, they can involve costly preparation and variable interpretation. Additionally, discordances between histology and expected biomarker findings can prompt repeat testing to address biological, interpretative, or technical reasons for unexpected results. Methods: We developed three independent deep learning systems (DLS) to directly predict ER/PR/HER2 status for both focal tissue regions (patches) and slides using hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained (H&E) images as input. Models were trained and evaluated using pathologist annotated slides from three data sources. Areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUCs) were calculated for test sets at both a patch-level (>135 million patches, 181 slides) and slide-level (n = 3274 slides, 1249 cases, 37 sites). Interpretability analyses were performed using Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV), saliency analysis, and pathologist review of clustered patches. Results: The patch-level AUCs are 0.939 (95%CI 0.936-0.941), 0.938 (0.936-0.940), and 0.808 (0.802-0.813) for ER/PR/HER2, respectively. At the slide level, AUCs are 0.86 (95%CI 0.84-0.87), 0.75 (0.73-0.77), and 0.60 (0.56-0.64) for ER/PR/HER2, respectively. Interpretability analyses show known biomarker-histomorphology associations including associations of low-grade and lobular histology with ER/PR positivity, and increased inflammatory infiltrates with triple-negative staining. Conclusions: This study presents rapid breast cancer biomarker estimation from routine H&E slides and builds on prior advances by prioritizing interpretability of computationally learned features in the context of existing pathological knowledge.

Evaluation of the Use of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Pathologist Assessment to Review and Grade Prostate Biopsies.

Importance: Expert-level artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for prostate biopsy grading have recently been developed. However, the potential impact of integrating such algorithms into pathologist workflows remains largely unexplored. Objective: To evaluate an expert-level AI-based assistive tool when used by pathologists for the grading of prostate biopsies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study used a fully crossed multiple-reader, multiple-case design to evaluate an AI-based assistive tool for prostate biopsy grading. Retrospective grading of prostate core needle biopsies from 2 independent medical laboratories in the US was performed between October 2019 and January 2020. A total of 20 general pathologists reviewed 240 prostate core needle biopsies from 240 patients. Each pathologist was randomized to 1 of 2 study cohorts. The 2 cohorts reviewed every case in the opposite modality (with AI assistance vs without AI assistance) to each other, with the modality switching after every 10 cases. After a minimum 4-week washout period for each batch, the pathologists reviewed the cases for a second time using the opposite modality. The pathologist-provided grade group for each biopsy was compared with the majority opinion of urologic pathology subspecialists. Exposure: An AI-based assistive tool for Gleason grading of prostate biopsies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Agreement between pathologists and subspecialists with and without the use of an AI-based assistive tool for the grading of all prostate biopsies and Gleason grade group 1 biopsies. Results: Biopsies from 240 patients (median age, 67 years; range, 39-91 years) with a median prostate-specific antigen level of 6.5 ng/mL (range, 0.6-97.0 ng/mL) were included in the analyses. Artificial intelligence-assisted review by pathologists was associated with a 5.6% increase (95% CI, 3.2%-7.9%; P < .001) in agreement with subspecialists (from 69.7% for unassisted reviews to 75.3% for assisted reviews) across all biopsies and a 6.2% increase (95% CI, 2.7%-9.8%; P = .001) in agreement with subspecialists (from 72.3% for unassisted reviews to 78.5% for assisted reviews) for grade group 1 biopsies. A secondary analysis indicated that AI assistance was also associated with improvements in tumor detection, mean review time, mean self-reported confidence, and interpathologist agreement. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the use of an AI-based assistive tool for the review of prostate biopsies was associated with improvements in the quality, efficiency, and consistency of cancer detection and grading.

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer From Biopsy Specimens.

Importance: For prostate cancer, Gleason grading of the biopsy specimen plays a pivotal role in determining case management. However, Gleason grading is associated with substantial interobserver variability, resulting in a need for decision support tools to improve the reproducibility of Gleason grading in routine clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the ability of a deep learning system (DLS) to grade diagnostic prostate biopsy specimens. Design, Setting, and Participants: The DLS was evaluated using 752 deidentified digitized images of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostate needle core biopsy specimens obtained from 3 institutions in the United States, including 1 institution not used for DLS development. To obtain the Gleason grade group (GG), each specimen was first reviewed by 2 expert urologic subspecialists from a multi-institutional panel of 6 individuals (years of experience: mean, 25 years; range, 18-34 years). A third subspecialist reviewed discordant cases to arrive at a majority opinion. To reduce diagnostic uncertainty, all subspecialists had access to an immunohistochemical-stained section and 3 histologic sections for every biopsied specimen. Their review was conducted from December 2018 to June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The frequency of the exact agreement of the DLS with the majority opinion of the subspecialists in categorizing each tumor-containing specimen as 1 of 5 categories: nontumor, GG1, GG2, GG3, or GG4-5. For comparison, the rate of agreement of 19 general pathologists' opinions with the subspecialists' majority opinions was also evaluated. Results: For grading tumor-containing biopsy specimens in the validation set (n = 498), the rate of agreement with subspecialists was significantly higher for the DLS (71.7%; 95% CI, 67.9%-75.3%) than for general pathologists (58.0%; 95% CI, 54.5%-61.4%) (P < .001). In subanalyses of biopsy specimens from an external validation set (n = 322), the Gleason grading performance of the DLS remained similar. For distinguishing nontumor from tumor-containing biopsy specimens (n = 752), the rate of agreement with subspecialists was 94.3% (95% CI, 92.4%-95.9%) for the DLS and similar at 94.7% (95% CI, 92.8%-96.3%) for general pathologists (P = .58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the DLS showed higher proficiency than general pathologists at Gleason grading prostate needle core biopsy specimens and generalized to an independent institution. Future research is necessary to evaluate the potential utility of using the DLS as a decision support tool in clinical workflows and to improve the quality of prostate cancer grading for therapy decisions.

A deep learning system for differential diagnosis of skin diseases.

Skin conditions affect 1.9 billion people. Because of a shortage of dermatologists, most cases are seen instead by general practitioners with lower diagnostic accuracy. We present a deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions using 16,114 de-identified cases (photographs and clinical data) from a teledermatology practice serving 17 sites. The DLS distinguishes between 26 common skin conditions, representing 80% of cases seen in primary care, while also providing a secondary prediction covering 419 skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was non-inferior to six other dermatologists and superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs) (top-1 accuracy: 0.66 DLS, 0.63 dermatologists, 0.44 PCPs and 0.40 NPs). These results highlight the potential of the DLS to assist general practitioners in diagnosing skin conditions.

Predicting optical coherence tomography-derived diabetic macular edema grades from fundus photographs using deep learning.

Center-involved diabetic macular edema (ci-DME) is a major cause of vision loss. Although the gold standard for diagnosis involves 3D imaging, 2D imaging by fundus photography is usually used in screening settings, resulting in high false-positive and false-negative calls. To address this, we train a deep learning model to predict ci-DME from fundus photographs, with an ROC-AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.91), corresponding to 85% sensitivity at 80% specificity. In comparison, retinal specialists have similar sensitivities (82-85%), but only half the specificity (45-50%, p < 0.001). Our model can also detect the presence of intraretinal fluid (AUC: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.81-0.86) and subretinal fluid (AUC 0.88; 95% CI: 0.85-0.91). Using deep learning to make predictions via simple 2D images without sophisticated 3D-imaging equipment and with better than specialist performance, has broad relevance to many other applications in medical imaging.

International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening.

Screening mammography aims to identify breast cancer at earlier stages of the disease, when treatment can be more successful1. Despite the existence of screening programmes worldwide, the interpretation of mammograms is affected by high rates of false positives and false negatives2. Here we present an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is capable of surpassing human experts in breast cancer prediction. To assess its performance in the clinical setting, we curated a large representative dataset from the UK and a large enriched dataset from the USA. We show an absolute reduction of 5.7% and 1.2% (USA and UK) in false positives and 9.4% and 2.7% in false negatives. We provide evidence of the ability of the system to generalize from the UK to the USA. In an independent study of six radiologists, the AI system outperformed all of the human readers: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) for the AI system was greater than the AUC-ROC for the average radiologist by an absolute margin of 11.5%. We ran a simulation in which the AI system participated in the double-reading process that is used in the UK, and found that the AI system maintained non-inferior performance and reduced the workload of the second reader by 88%. This robust assessment of the AI system paves the way for clinical trials to improve the accuracy and efficiency of breast cancer screening.

Erratum: Publisher Correction: Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for improving Gleason scoring of prostate cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0112-2.].