Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnostic decisions of specialist optometrists exposed to ambiguous deep-learning outputs.
Carmichael, Josie; Costanza, Enrico; Blandford, Ann; Struyven, Robbert; Keane, Pearse A; Balaskas, Konstantinos.
Affiliation
  • Carmichael J; University College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK. josie.carmichael.20@ucl.ac.uk.
  • Costanza E; Institute of Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL, London, UK. josie.carmichael.20@ucl.ac.uk.
  • Blandford A; University College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.
  • Struyven R; University College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC), UCL, London, UK.
  • Keane PA; Institute of Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL, London, UK.
  • Balaskas K; Institute of Ophthalmology, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL, London, UK.
Sci Rep ; 14(1): 6775, 2024 03 21.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38514657
ABSTRACT
Artificial intelligence (AI) has great potential in ophthalmology. We investigated how ambiguous outputs from an AI diagnostic support system (AI-DSS) affected diagnostic responses from optometrists when assessing cases of suspected retinal disease. Thirty optometrists (15 more experienced, 15 less) assessed 30 clinical cases. For ten, participants saw an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan, basic clinical information and retinal photography ('no AI'). For another ten, they were also given AI-generated OCT-based probabilistic diagnoses ('AI diagnosis'); and for ten, both AI-diagnosis and AI-generated OCT segmentations ('AI diagnosis + segmentation') were provided. Cases were matched across the three types of presentation and were selected to include 40% ambiguous and 20% incorrect AI outputs. Optometrist diagnostic agreement with the predefined reference standard was lowest for 'AI diagnosis + segmentation' (204/300, 68%) compared to 'AI diagnosis' (224/300, 75% p = 0.010), and 'no Al' (242/300, 81%, p = < 0.001). Agreement with AI diagnosis consistent with the reference standard decreased (174/210 vs 199/210, p = 0.003), but participants trusted the AI more (p = 0.029) with segmentations. Practitioner experience did not affect diagnostic responses (p = 0.24). More experienced participants were more confident (p = 0.012) and trusted the AI less (p = 0.038). Our findings also highlight issues around reference standard definition.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ophthalmology / Retinal Diseases / Optometrists / Deep Learning Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Sci Rep Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Reino Unido

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ophthalmology / Retinal Diseases / Optometrists / Deep Learning Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Sci Rep Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Reino Unido