Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
AI-clinician collaboration via disagreement prediction: A decision pipeline and retrospective analysis of real-world radiologist-AI interactions.
Sanchez, Morgan; Alford, Kyle; Krishna, Viswesh; Huynh, Thanh M; Nguyen, Chanh D T; Lungren, Matthew P; Truong, Steven Q H; Rajpurkar, Pranav.
Afiliação
  • Sanchez M; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: morgansanchez@g.harvard.edu.
  • Alford K; Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
  • Krishna V; Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94301, USA.
  • Huynh TM; VinBrain JSC, Hanoi 11622, Vietnam.
  • Nguyen CDT; VinBrain JSC, Hanoi 11622, Vietnam; VinUniversity, Hanoi 12450, Vietnam.
  • Lungren MP; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA 98052, USA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA; Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94301, USA.
  • Truong SQH; VinBrain JSC, Hanoi 11622, Vietnam; VinUniversity, Hanoi 12450, Vietnam.
  • Rajpurkar P; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Cell Rep Med ; 4(10): 101207, 2023 10 17.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37769656
ABSTRACT
Clinical decision support tools can improve diagnostic performance or reduce variability, but they are also subject to post-deployment underperformance. Although using AI in an assistive setting offsets many concerns with autonomous AI in medicine, systems that present all predictions equivalently fail to protect against key AI safety concerns. We design a decision pipeline that supports the diagnostic model with an ecosystem of models, integrating disagreement prediction, clinical significance categorization, and prediction quality modeling to guide prediction presentation. We characterize disagreement using data from a deployed chest X-ray interpretation aid and compare clinician burden in this proposed pipeline to the diagnostic model in isolation. The average disagreement rate is 6.5%, and the expected burden reduction is 4.8%, even if 5% of disagreements on urgent findings receive a second read. We conclude that, in our production setting, we can adequately balance risk mitigation with clinician burden if disagreement false positives are reduced.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Inteligência Artificial / Radiologistas Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Inteligência Artificial / Radiologistas Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article