Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38789575›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

AI for interpreting screening mammograms: implications for missed cancer in double reading practices and challenging-to-locate lesions.

Zhengqiang Jiang, Ziba Gandomkar, Phuong Dung Yun Trieu, Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba, Melissa L Barron, Sarah J Lewis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Zhengqiang JiangDiscipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. zhengqiang.jiang@sydney.edu.au.
Ziba GandomkarDiscipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Phuong Dung Yun TrieuDiscipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Seyedamir Tavakoli TabaDiscipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Melissa L BarronDiscipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sarah J LewisDiscipline of Medical Imaging Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the value of adding AI as a surrogate second reader in various scenarios has been investigated, it is unknown whether implementing an AI tool within double reading practice would capture additional subtle cancers missed by both radiologists who independently assessed the mammograms. This paper assesses the effectiveness of two state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence (AI) models in detecting retrospectively-identified missed cancers within a screening program employing double reading practices. The study also explores the agreement between AI and radiologists in locating the lesions, considering various levels of concordance among the radiologists in locating the lesions. The Globally-aware Multiple Instance Classifier (GMIC) and Global-Local Activation Maps (GLAM) models were fine-tuned for our dataset. We evaluated the sensitivity of both models on missed cancers retrospectively identified by a panel of three radiologists who reviewed prior examinations of 729 cancer cases detected in a screening program with double reading practice. Two of these experts annotated the lesions, and based on their concordance levels, cases were categorized as 'almost perfect,' 'substantial,' 'moderate,' and 'poor.' We employed Similarity or Histogram Intersection (SIM) and Kullback-Leibler Divergence (KLD) metrics to compare saliency maps of malignant cases from the AI model with annotations from radiologists in each category. In total, 24.82% of cancers were labeled as "missed." The performance of GMIC and GLAM on the missed cancer cases was 82.98% and 79.79%, respectively, while for the true screen-detected cancers, the performances were 89.54% and 87.25%, respectively (p-values for the difference in sensitivity < 0.05). As anticipated, SIM and KLD from saliency maps were best in 'almost perfect,' followed by 'substantial,' 'moderate,' and 'poor.' Both GMIC and GLAM (p-values < 0.05) exhibited greater sensitivity at higher concordance. Even in a screening program with independent double reading, adding AI could potentially identify missed cancers. However, the challenging-to-locate lesions for radiologists impose a similar challenge for AI.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityArtificial intelligenceConcordance correlation coefficientMammographySaliency mapsTransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID38789575
PMCPMC11126609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.