Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383147›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance.

Laura Kerschke, Stefanie Weigel, Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz, Nico Karssemeijer, Walter Heindel

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05048095 (The Use of AI as a Third Reader and During Consensus in a Double Reading Breast Cancer Screening Program in Sweden), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05048095 completednot on this map

The Use of AI as a Third Reader and During Consensus in a Double Reading Breast Cancer Screening Program in Sweden

TypeobservationalSponsorOstergotland County Council, SwedenRan2021 to 2022Enrolled15,500ConditionsBreast CancerArmsAI cancer detection system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Laura KerschkeInstitute of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, IBKF, University of Muenster, Schmeddingstrasse 56, 48149, Muenster, Germany. laura.kerschke@ukmuenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1195-7399
Stefanie WeigelClinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Muenster, University of Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Alejandro Rodriguez-RuizScreenPoint Medical BV, Toernooiveld 300, 6525, EC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nico KarssemeijerScreenPoint Medical BV, Toernooiveld 300, 6525, EC, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Walter HeindelClinic for Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography Muenster, University of Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
University Hospital Münster · DECenter for Clinical Research (United States) · USRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

Interreg 122207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate if artificial intelligence (AI) can discriminate recalled benign from recalled malignant mammographic screening abnormalities to improve screening performance.

methodsA total of 2257 full-field digital mammography screening examinations, obtained 2011-2013, of women aged 50-69 years which were recalled for further assessment of 295 malignant out of 305 truly malignant lesions and 2289 benign lesions after independent double-reading with arbitration, were included in this retrospective study. A deep learning AI system was used to obtain a score (0-95) for each recalled lesion, representing the likelihood of breast cancer. The sensitivity on the lesion level and the proportion of women without false-positive ratings (non-FPR) resulting under AI were estimated as a function of the classification cutoff and compared to that of human readers.

resultsUsing a cutoff of 1, AI decreased the proportion of women with false-positives from 89.9 to 62.0%, non-FPR 11.1% vs. 38.0% (difference 26.9%, 95% confidence interval 25.1-28.8%; p < .001), preventing 30.1% of reader-induced false-positive recalls, while reducing sensitivity from 96.7 to 91.1% (5.6%, 3.1-8.0%) as compared to human reading. The positive predictive value of recall (PPV-1) increased from 12.8 to 16.5% (3.7%, 3.5-4.0%). In women with mass-related lesions (n = 900), the non-FPR was 14.2% for humans vs. 36.7% for AI (22.4%, 19.8-25.3%) at a sensitivity of 98.5% vs. 97.1% (1.5%, 0-3.5%).

conclusionThe application of AI during consensus conference might especially help readers to reduce false-positive recalls of masses at the expense of a small sensitivity reduction. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the screening benefit of AI in practice. KEY POINTS: • Integrating the use of artificial intelligence in the arbitration process reduces benign recalls and increases the positive predictive value of recall at the expense of some sensitivity loss. • Application of the artificial intelligence system to aid the decision to recall a woman seems particularly beneficial for masses, where the system reaches comparable sensitivity to that of the readers, but with considerably reduced false-positives. • About one-fourth of all recalled malignant lesions are not automatically marked by the system such that their evaluation (AI score) must be retrieved manually by the reader. A thorough reading of screening mammograms by readers to identify suspicious lesions therefore remains mandatory.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDeep LearningArtificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningNegotiatingRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceBreast cancerMammographyScreening

Identifiers

PMID34383147
PMCPMC8794989
OpenAlexW3191082755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.