Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Impact of Original and Artificially Improved Artificial Intelligence-based Computer-aided Diagnosis on Breast US Interpretation.
Berg, Wendie A; Gur, David; Bandos, Andriy I; Nair, Bronwyn; Gizienski, Terri-Ann; Tyma, Cathy S; Abrams, Gordon; Davis, Katie M; Mehta, Amar S; Rathfon, Grace; Waheed, Uzma X; Hakim, Christiane M.
Affiliation
  • Berg WA; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Gur D; Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Bandos AI; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Nair B; University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
  • Gizienski TA; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Tyma CS; Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Abrams G; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Davis KM; Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Mehta AS; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Rathfon G; Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
  • Waheed UX; New York University Langone Medical Center, Department of Radiology, New York, NY,USA.
  • Hakim CM; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, PA,USA.
J Breast Imaging ; 3(3): 301-311, 2021 May 21.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38424776
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

For breast US interpretation, to assess impact of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in original mode or with improved sensitivity or specificity.

METHODS:

In this IRB approved protocol, orthogonal-paired US images of 319 lesions identified on screening, including 88 (27.6%) cancers (median 7 mm, range 1-34 mm), were reviewed by 9 breast imaging radiologists. Each observer provided BI-RADS assessments (2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5) before and after CADx in a mode-balanced

design:

mode 1, original CADx (outputs benign, probably benign, suspicious, or malignant); mode 2, artificially-high-sensitivity CADx (benign or malignant); and mode 3, artificially-high-specificity CADx (benign or malignant). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated under each modality and for standalone CADx outputs. Multi-reader analysis accounted for inter-reader variability and correlation between same-lesion assessments.

RESULTS:

AUC of standalone CADx was 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.83). For mode 1, average reader AUC was 0.82 (range 0.76-0.84) without CADx and not significantly changed with CADx. In high-sensitivity mode, all observers' AUCs increased average AUC 0.83 (range 0.78-0.86) before CADx increased to 0.88 (range 0.84-0.90), P < 0.001. In high-specificity mode, all observers' AUCs increased average AUC 0.82 (range 0.76-0.84) before CADx increased to 0.89 (range 0.87-0.92), P < 0.0001. Radiologists responded more frequently to malignant CADx cues in high-specificity mode (42.7% vs 23.2% mode 1, and 27.0% mode 2, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION:

Original CADx did not substantially impact radiologists' interpretations. Radiologists showed improved performance and were more responsive when CADx produced fewer false-positive malignant cues.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Breast Imaging Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: J Breast Imaging Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States