Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38106815›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2023

Validating racial and ethnic non-bias of artificial intelligence decision support for diagnostic breast ultrasound evaluation.

Clara Koo, Anthony Yang, Colton Welch, Vipashyana Jadav, Liana Posch, Nicholas Thoreson, Darrell Morris, Fatima Chouhdry, Janet Szabo, David Mendelson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Clara KooIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8620-7990
Anthony YangIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Colton WelchIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Vipashyana JadavIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Liana PoschIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Nicholas ThoresonIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Darrell MorrisIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Fatima ChouhdryIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Janet SzaboIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
David MendelsonIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.
Laurie R MargoliesIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, Diagnostic Molecular and Interventional Radiology, New York, New York, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Breast ultrasound suffers from low positive predictive value and specificity. Artificial intelligence (AI) proposes to improve accuracy, reduce false negatives, reduce inter- and intra-observer variability and decrease the rate of benign biopsies. Perpetuating racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare and patient outcome is a potential risk when incorporating AI-based models into clinical practice; therefore, it is necessary to validate its non-bias before clinical use. Approach: Our retrospective review assesses whether our AI decision support (DS) system demonstrates racial/ethnic bias by evaluating its performance on 1810 biopsy proven cases from nine breast imaging facilities within our health system from January 1, 2018 to October 28, 2021. Patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, AI DS output, and pathology results were obtained. Results: Significant differences in breast pathology incidence were seen across different racial and ethnic groups. Stratified analysis showed that the difference in output by our AI DS system was due to underlying differences in pathology incidence for our specific cohort and did not demonstrate statistically significant bias in output among race/ethnic groups, suggesting similar effectiveness of our AI DS system among different races ( Conclusions: Our study shows promise that an AI DS system may serve as a valuable second opinion in the detection of breast cancer on diagnostic ultrasound without significant racial or ethnic bias. AI tools are not meant to replace the radiologist, but rather to aid in screening and diagnosis without perpetuating racial/ethnic disparities.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebreast cancerbreast ultrasounddeep learningracial and ethnicity bias

Identifiers

PMID38106815
PMCPMC10721939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.