Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 03 2020
02 03 2020
Historique:
entrez:
3
3
2020
pubmed:
3
3
2020
medline:
5
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated. Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32119094
pii: 2761795
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0265
pmc: PMC7052735
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e200265Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA154292
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : P41 EB017183
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R35 GM133346
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R37 CA240403
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Références
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2020 Apr;39(4):1184-1194
pubmed: 31603772
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Sep 1;111(9):875-876
pubmed: 30721962
Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118
pubmed: 28117445
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1216-9
pubmed: 27682033
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Nov 1;3(11):1463-1464
pubmed: 28472204
Radiology. 2019 Feb;290(2):305-314
pubmed: 30457482
Methods. 2016 Jan 15;93:92-102
pubmed: 26342255
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 15;8(1):4165
pubmed: 29545529
Radiology. 2017 Apr;283(1):49-58
pubmed: 27918707
Radiology. 2019 Aug;292(2):331-342
pubmed: 31210611
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Aug;32(4):618-624
pubmed: 30963339
Nat Biotechnol. 2018 May 9;36(5):391-392
pubmed: 29734317
Nature. 2016 May 11;533(7602):S62-4
pubmed: 27167394
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Feb 4;160(3):145
pubmed: 24658691
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 5;356(14):1399-409
pubmed: 17409321
Radiol Artif Intell. 2019 Jul 31;1(4):e180096
pubmed: 32076660
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):256-67
pubmed: 26756737
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Nov;175(11):1828-37
pubmed: 26414882
Nat Biomed Eng. 2018 Mar;2(3):158-164
pubmed: 31015713
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):727-37, W237-42
pubmed: 19920273
Breast. 2017 Dec;36:31-33
pubmed: 28938172
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Sep 1;111(9):916-922
pubmed: 30834436
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 Jul 15;17(8):470-86
pubmed: 27418159
Radiology. 2015 Dec;277(3):826-32
pubmed: 26509226