Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Can artificial intelligence pass the Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists examination? Multi-reader diagnostic accuracy study.
Shelmerdine, Susan Cheng; Martin, Helena; Shirodkar, Kapil; Shamshuddin, Sameer; Weir-McCall, Jonathan Richard.
Afiliação
  • Shelmerdine SC; Department of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK susan.shelmerdine@gosh.nhs.uk.
  • Martin H; UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.
  • Shirodkar K; NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
  • Shamshuddin S; Department of Clinical Radiology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
  • Weir-McCall JR; Department of Clinical Radiology, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
BMJ ; 379: e072826, 2022 12 21.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36543352
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether an artificial intelligence candidate could pass the rapid (radiographic) reporting component of the Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination.

DESIGN:

Prospective multi-reader diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING:

United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS:

One artificial intelligence candidate (Smarturgences, Milvue) and 26 radiologists who had passed the FRCR examination in the preceding 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME

MEASURES:

Accuracy and pass rate of the artificial intelligence compared with radiologists across 10 mock FRCR rapid reporting examinations (each examination containing 30 radiographs, requiring 90% accuracy rate to pass).

RESULTS:

When non-interpretable images were excluded from the analysis, the artificial intelligence candidate achieved an average overall accuracy of 79.5% (95% confidence interval 74.1% to 84.3%) and passed two of 10 mock FRCR examinations. The average radiologist achieved an average accuracy of 84.8% (76.1-91.9%) and passed four of 10 mock examinations. The sensitivity for the artificial intelligence was 83.6% (95% confidence interval 76.2% to 89.4%) and the specificity was 75.2% (66.7% to 82.5%), compared with summary estimates across all radiologists of 84.1% (81.0% to 87.0%) and 87.3% (85.0% to 89.3%). Across 148/300 radiographs that were correctly interpreted by >90% of radiologists, the artificial intelligence candidate was incorrect in 14/148 (9%). In 20/300 radiographs that most (>50%) radiologists interpreted incorrectly, the artificial intelligence candidate was correct in 10/20 (50%). Most imaging pitfalls related to interpretation of musculoskeletal rather than chest radiographs.

CONCLUSIONS:

When special dispensation for the artificial intelligence candidate was provided (that is, exclusion of non-interpretable images), the artificial intelligence candidate was able to pass two of 10 mock examinations. Potential exists for the artificial intelligence candidate to improve its radiographic interpretation skills by focusing on musculoskeletal cases and learning to interpret radiographs of the axial skeleton and abdomen that are currently considered "non-interpretable."
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Inteligência Artificial / Bolsas de Estudo Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Inteligência Artificial / Bolsas de Estudo Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article