| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Kerruish, Sarah
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Artificial Intelligence as Supporting Reader in Breast Screening: A Novel Workflow to Preserve Quality and Reduce Workload
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>To evaluate the effectiveness of a new strategy for using artificial intelligence (AI) as supporting reader for the detection of breast cancer in mammography-based double reading screening practice.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Large-scale multi-site, multi-vendor data were used to retrospectively evaluate a new paradigm of AI-supported reading. Here, the AI served as the second reader only if it agrees with the recall/no-recall decision of the first human reader. Otherwise, a second human reader made an assessment followed by the standard clinical workflow. The data included 280 594 cases from 180 542 female participants screened for breast cancer at seven screening sites in two countries and using equipment from four hardware vendors. The statistical analysis included non-inferiority and superiority testing of cancer screening performance and evaluation of the reduction in workload, measured as arbitration rate and number of cases requiring second human reading.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>AI as a supporting reader was found to be superior or non-inferior on all screening metrics compared with human double reading while reducing the number of cases requiring second human reading by up to 87% (245 395/280 594). Compared with AI as an independent reader, the number of cases referred to arbitration was reduced from 13% (35 199/280 594) to 2% (5056/280 594).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>The simulation indicates that the proposed workflow retains screening performance of human double reading while substantially reducing the workload. Further research should study the impact on the second human reader because they would only assess cases in which the AI prediction and first human reader disagree.</jats:p></jats:sec>