Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35970474›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2022

Radiologist Preferences for Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support During Screening Mammography Interpretation.

Nathaniel Hendrix, Kathryn P Lowry, Joann G Elmore, William Lotter, Gregory Sorensen, William Hsu, Geraldine J Liao, Sana Parsian, Suzanne Kolb, Arash Naeim and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Nathaniel HendrixDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kathryn P LowryDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: kplowry@uw.edu.
Joann G ElmoreDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
William LotterChief Technology Officer, DeepHealth Inc, RadNet AI Solutions, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Gregory SorensenChief Technology Officer, DeepHealth Inc, RadNet AI Solutions, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
William HsuDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Data Integration, Architecture, and Analytics Group, University of California, Los Angeles, California; American Medical Informatics Association: Member, Governance Committee; RSNA: Deputy Editor, Radiology: Artificial Intelligence.
Geraldine J LiaoDepartment of Radiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Sana ParsianDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington; Department of Radiology, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Suzanne KolbDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington.
Arash NaeimDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California; Chief Medical Officer for Clinical Research, UCLA Health; Codirector: Clinical and Translational Science Institute and Center for SMART Health; Associate Director: Institute for Precision Health, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Garrick Institute for Risk Sciences.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington; Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and Deputy Editor, JACR.
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance · USOral Health Solutions (United States) · USAmerican Medical Informatics Association · USHarvard Global Health Institute · USOklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USVirginia Mason Medical Center · US

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Janie M Lee · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
NCCIH Supplement to NCATS/CTSA Program for KL2 Scholars - M. SoddersKL2TR002317 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Christy Michelle McKinney · 2017 to 2026
$14.5M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002318 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Megan Moore · 2017 to 2026
$8.4M
Artificial Intelligence for Improved Breast Cancer Screening Accuracy: External Validation, Refinement, and Clinical TranslationR37CA240403 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI CHRISTOPH I LEE · 2020 to 2026
$3.8M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002317NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002318NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS R37 CA240403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) may improve cancer detection and risk prediction during mammography screening, but radiologists' preferences regarding its characteristics and implementation are unknown. PURPOSE: To quantify how different attributes of AI-based cancer detection and risk prediction tools affect radiologists' intentions to use AI during screening mammography interpretation. MATERIALS AND

methodsThrough qualitative interviews with radiologists, we identified five primary attributes for AI-based breast cancer detection and four for breast cancer risk prediction. We developed a discrete choice experiment based on these attributes and invited 150 US-based radiologists to participate. Each respondent made eight choices for each tool between three alternatives: two hypothetical AI-based tools versus screening without AI. We analyzed samplewide preferences using random parameters logit models and identified subgroups with latent class models.

resultsRespondents (n = 66; 44% response rate) were from six diverse practice settings across eight states. Radiologists were more interested in AI for cancer detection when sensitivity and specificity were balanced (94% sensitivity with <25% of examinations marked) and AI markup appeared at the end of the hanging protocol after radiologists complete their independent review. For AI-based risk prediction, radiologists preferred AI models using both mammography images and clinical data. Overall, 46% to 60% intended to adopt any of the AI tools presented in the study; 26% to 33% approached AI enthusiastically but were deterred if the features did not align with their preferences.

conclusionAlthough most radiologists want to use AI-based decision support, short-term uptake may be maximized by implementing tools that meet the preferences of dissuadable users.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyArtificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningRadiologistsArtificial intelligencebreast cancercancer screeningdiscrete choice experimentpreferences

Identifiers

PMID35970474
PMCPMC9840464
OpenAlexW4291033329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.