Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiologists on breast cancer with or without artificial intelligence (AI) support.Methods
A retrospective study was performed. In total, 643 mammograms (average age: 54 years; female: 100%; cancer: 62.05%) were randomly allocated into two groups. Seventy-five percent of mammograms in each group were randomly selected for assessment by two independent radiologists, and the rest were read once. Half of the 71 radiologists could read mammograms with AI support, and the other half could not. Sensitivity, specificity, Youden's index, agreement rate, Kappa value, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the reading time of radiologists in each group were analyzed.Results
The average AUC was higher if the AI support system was used (unaided: 0.84; with AI support: 0.91; p < 0.01). The average sensitivity increased from 84.77% to 95.07% with AI support (p < 0.01), but the average specificity decreased (p = 0.07). Youden's index, agreement rate and Kappa value were larger in the group with AI support, and the average reading time was shorter (p < 0.01).Conclusions
The AI support system might contribute to enhancing the diagnostic performance (e.g., higher sensitivity and AUC) of radiologists. In the future, the AI algorithm should be improved, and prospective studies should be conducted.
SUBMITTER: Bao C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9939225 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Bao Chengzhen C Shen Jie J Zhang Yue Y Zhang Yan Y Wei Wei W Wang Ziteng Z Ding Jia J Han Lili L
Cancer medicine 20220909 3
<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiologists on breast cancer with or without artificial intelligence (AI) support.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective study was performed. In total, 643 mammograms (average age: 54 years; female: 100%; cancer: 62.05%) were randomly allocated into two groups. Seventy-five percent of mammograms in each group were randomly selected for assessment by two independent radiologists, and the rest were read once. Half of the 71 radiologists could ...[more]