Dataset Information

Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars? Not Yet!

ABSTRACT: Artificial intelligence (AI) is here to stay and will change health care as we know it. The availability of big data and the increasing numbers of AI algorithms approved by the US Food and Drug Administration together will help in improving the quality of care for patients and in overcoming human fatigue barriers. In oncology practice, patients and providers rely on the interpretation of radiologists when making clinical decisions; however, there is considerable variability among readers, and in particular for prostate imaging. AI represents an emerging solution to this problem, for which it can provide a much-needed form of standardization. The diagnostic performance of AI alone in comparison to a combination of an AI framework and radiologist assessment for evaluation of prostate imaging has yet to be explored. Here, we compare the performance of radiologists alone versus a combination of radiologists aided by a modern computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) AI system. We show that the radiologist-CAD combination demonstrates superior sensitivity and specificity in comparison to both radiologists alone and AI alone. Our findings demonstrate that a radiologist + AI combination could perform best for detection of prostate cancer lesions. A hybrid technology-human system could leverage the benefits of AI in improving radiologist performance while also reducing physician workload, minimizing burnout, and enhancing the quality of patient care.

Patient summary

Our report demonstrates the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) for improving the interpretation of prostate scans. A combination of AI and evaluation by a radiologist has the best performance in determining the severity of prostate cancer. A hybrid system that uses both AI and radiologists could maximize the quality of care for patients while reducing physician workload and burnout.

SUBMITTER: Cacciamani GE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9794880 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars? Not Yet!

Cacciamani Giovanni E GE Sanford Daniel I DI Chu Timothy N TN Kaneko Masatomo M De Castro Abreu Andre L AL Duddalwar Vinay V Gill Inderbir S IS

European urology open science 20221219

Artificial intelligence (AI) is here to stay and will change health care as we know it. The availability of big data and the increasing numbers of AI algorithms approved by the US Food and Drug Administration together will help in improving the quality of care for patients and in overcoming human fatigue barriers. In oncology practice, patients and providers rely on the interpretation of radiologists when making clinical decisions; however, there is considerable variability among readers, and in ...[more]

PMID: 36588775

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThere has been a large amount of research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) as applied to clinical radiology. However, these studies vary in design and quality and systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking.This systematic review aimed to identify all papers that used deep learning in radiology to survey the literature and to evaluate their methods. We aimed to identify the key questions being addressed in the literature and to identify the most effective methods employed.MethodsWe followed the PRISMA guidelines and performed a systematic review of studies of AI in radiology published from 2015 to 2019. Our published protocol was prospectively registered.ResultsOur search yielded 11,083 results. Seven hundred sixty-seven full texts were reviewed, and 535 articles were included. Ninety-eight percent were retrospective cohort studies. The median number of patients included was 460. Most studies involved MRI (37%). Neuroradiology was the most common subspecialty. Eighty-eight percent used supervised learning. The majority of studies undertook a segmentation task (39%). Performance comparison was with a state-of-the-art model in 37%. The most used established architecture was UNet (14%). The median performance for the most utilised evaluation metrics was Dice of 0.89 (range .49-.99), AUC of 0.903 (range 1.00-0.61) and Accuracy of 89.4 (range 70.2-100). Of the 77 studies that externally validated their results and allowed for direct comparison, performance on average decreased by 6% at external validation (range increase of 4% to decrease 44%).ConclusionThis systematic review has surveyed the major advances in AI as applied to clinical radiology.Key points• While there are many papers reporting expert-level results by using deep learning in radiology, most apply only a narrow range of techniques to a narrow selection of use cases. • The literature is dominated by retrospective cohort studies with limited external validation with high potential for bias. • The recent advent of AI extensions to systematic reporting guidelines and prospective trial registration along with a focus on external validation and explanations show potential for translation of the hype surrounding AI from code to clinic.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is transforming various fields, with health care, especially diagnostic specialties such as radiology, being a key but controversial battleground. However, there is limited research systematically examining the response of "human intelligence" to AI.ObjectiveThis study aims to comprehend radiologists' perceptions regarding AI, including their views on its potential to replace them, its usefulness, and their willingness to accept it. We examine the influence of various factors, encompassing demographic characteristics, working status, psychosocial aspects, personal experience, and contextual factors.MethodsBetween December 1, 2020, and April 30, 2021, a cross-sectional survey was completed by 3666 radiology residents in China. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine factors and associations, reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.ResultsIn summary, radiology residents generally hold a positive attitude toward AI, with 29.90% (1096/3666) agreeing that AI may reduce the demand for radiologists, 72.80% (2669/3666) believing AI improves disease diagnosis, and 78.18% (2866/3666) feeling that radiologists should embrace AI. Several associated factors, including age, gender, education, region, eye strain, working hours, time spent on medical images, resilience, burnout, AI experience, and perceptions of residency support and stress, significantly influence AI attitudes. For instance, burnout symptoms were associated with greater concerns about AI replacement (OR 1.89; P<.001), less favorable views on AI usefulness (OR 0.77; P=.005), and reduced willingness to use AI (OR 0.71; P<.001). Moreover, after adjusting for all other factors, perceived AI replacement (OR 0.81; P<.001) and AI usefulness (OR 5.97; P<.001) were shown to significantly impact the intention to use AI.ConclusionsThis study profiles radiology residents who are accepting of AI. Our comprehensive findings provide insights for a multidimensional approach to help physicians adapt to AI. Targeted policies, such as digital health care initiatives and medical education, can be developed accordingly.

Project description:ObjectiveIn Korea, radiology has been positioned towards the early adoption of artificial intelligence-based software as medical devices (AI-SaMDs); however, little is known about the current usage, implementation, and future needs of AI-SaMDs. We surveyed the current trends and expectations for AI-SaMDs among members of the Korean Society of Radiology (KSR).Materials and methodsAn anonymous and voluntary online survey was open to all KSR members between April 17 and May 15, 2023. The survey was focused on the experiences of using AI-SaMDs, patterns of usage, levels of satisfaction, and expectations regarding the use of AI-SaMDs, including the roles of the industry, government, and KSR regarding the clinical use of AI-SaMDs.ResultsAmong the 370 respondents (response rate: 7.7% [370/4792]; 340 board-certified radiologists; 210 from academic institutions), 60.3% (223/370) had experience using AI-SaMDs. The two most common use-case of AI-SaMDs among the respondents were lesion detection (82.1%, 183/223), lesion diagnosis/classification (55.2%, 123/223), with the target imaging modalities being plain radiography (62.3%, 139/223), CT (42.6%, 95/223), mammography (29.1%, 65/223), and MRI (28.7%, 64/223). Most users were satisfied with AI-SaMDs (67.6% [115/170, for improvement of patient management] to 85.1% [189/222, for performance]). Regarding the expansion of clinical applications, most respondents expressed a preference for AI-SaMDs to assist in detection/diagnosis (77.0%, 285/370) and to perform automated measurement/quantification (63.5%, 235/370). Most respondents indicated that future development of AI-SaMDs should focus on improving practice efficiency (81.9%, 303/370) and quality (71.4%, 264/370). Overall, 91.9% of the respondents (340/370) agreed that there is a need for education or guidelines driven by the KSR regarding the use of AI-SaMDs.ConclusionThe penetration rate of AI-SaMDs in clinical practice and the corresponding satisfaction levels were high among members of the KSR. Most AI-SaMDs have been used for lesion detection, diagnosis, and classification. Most respondents requested KSR-driven education or guidelines on the use of AI-SaMDs.

Dataset Information

Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars? Not Yet!

Patient summary

Publications

Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars? Not Yet!

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets