Dergiler / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3

Application of ultrasonic dual-mode artificially intelligent architecture in assisting radiologists with different diagnostic levels on breast masses classification

Sayfa
315–322
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Using the dual-mode, substantial agreement was seen among the experienced radiologists (0.65 to 0.74, p = 0.017) and all radiologists (0.62 to 0.73, p = 0.001).CONCLUSIONAI assistance provides a more pronounced improvement in diagnostic performance for the inexperienced radiologists; meanwhile, the experienced radiologists benefit more from AI in reducing interobserver variability.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:PURPOSE We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver variability in breast tumor classification with or without the aid of an innovative dual-mode artificial intelligence (AI) architecture, which can automatically integrate information from ultrasonography (US) and shear-wave elastography (SWE).METHODSDiagnostic performance assessment was performed with a test subset, containing 599 images (from September 2018 to February 2019) from 91 patients including 64 benign and 27 malignant breast tumors.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve analysis and Cohen's κ statistics were calculated.RESULTSIn the inexperienced radiologists’ group, the average area under the ROC curve (AUC) for diagnostic performance increased from 0.722 to 0.765 (p = 0.050) with secondary diagnosis using US-mode and from 0.794 to 0.834 (p = 0.019) with secondary diagnosis using dual-mode compared with independent diagnosis.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Using the dual-mode, substantial agreement was seen among the experienced radiologists (0.65 to 0.74, p = 0.017) and all radiologists (0.62 to 0.73, p = 0.001).CONCLUSIONAI assistance provides a more pronounced improvement in diagnostic performance for the inexperienced radiologists; meanwhile, the experienced radiologists benefit more from AI in reducing interobserver variability.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

PURPOSE We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver variability in breast tumor classification with or without the aid of an innovative dual-mode artificial intelligence (AI) architecture, which can automatically integrate information from ultrasonography (US) and shear-wave elastography (SWE).METHODSDiagnostic performance assessment was performed with a test subset, containing 599 images (from September 2018 to February 2019) from 91 patients including 64 benign and 27 malignant breast tumors. Six radiologists (three inexperienced, three experienced) were assigned to read images independently (independent diagnosis) and then make a secondary diagnosis with the knowledge of AI results. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve analysis and Cohen's κ statistics were calculated.RESULTSIn the inexperienced radiologists’ group, the average area under the ROC curve (AUC) for diagnostic performance increased from 0.722 to 0.765 (p = 0.050) with secondary diagnosis using US-mode and from 0.794 to 0.834 (p = 0.019) with secondary diagnosis using dual-mode compared with independent diagnosis. In the experienced radiologists’ group, the average AUC for diagnostic performance was significantly higher with AI system using the US-mode (0.812 vs. 0.833, p = 0.039), but not for dual-mode (0.858 vs. 0.866, p = 0.458). Using the USmode, interobserver agreement among all radiologists improved from fair to moderate (p = 0.003). Using the dual-mode, substantial agreement was seen among the experienced radiologists (0.65 to 0.74, p = 0.017) and all radiologists (0.62 to 0.73, p = 0.001).CONCLUSIONAI assistance provides a more pronounced improvement in diagnostic performance for the inexperienced radiologists; meanwhile, the experienced radiologists benefit more from AI in reducing interobserver variability.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

LI, C., LI, J., TAN, T., CHEN, K., XU, Y., WU, R. (2021). Application of ultrasonic dual-mode artificially intelligent architecture in assisting radiologists with different diagnostic levels on breast masses classification. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3, 315–322. https://ajindex.com/articles/349959

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2018
  2. 7–30. [Crossref] 2. Wender RC, Brawley OW, Fedewa SA, Gansler T, Smith RA. A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: advancing screening’s contribution to cancer control. CA Cancer J Clin 2018
  3. 1–31. [Crossref] 3. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: a review of current American cancer society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2018
  4. 297–316. [Crossref] 4. Hou XY, Niu HY, Huang XL, Yu G. Correlation of breast ultrasound classifications with cancer in Chinese women. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016
  5. 2616–2621. [Crossref] 5. da Costa Vieira RA, Biller G, Uemura G, Ruiz CA, Curado MP. Breast cancer screening in developing countries. Clinics 2017
  6. 244–253. [Crossref] 6. D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Mendelson E, Morris E. Breast imaging reporting and data system 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2013. 7. Schwab F, Redling K, Siebert M, Schotzau A, Schoenenberger CA, Zanetti-Dallenbach R. Inter- and intra-observer agreement in ultrasound BI-RADS classification and real-time elastography Tsukuba score assessment of breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016
  7. 2622–2629. [Crossref] 8. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, et al. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrasonic Imaging 1991
  8. 111–134. [Crossref] 9. Xue Y, Yao SX, Li XD, Zhang HR. Value of shear wave elastography in discriminating malignant and benign breast lesions A meta-analysis. Medicine 2017
  9. [Crossref] 10. Guo RR, Lu GL, Fei BW. Ultrasound imaging technologies for breast cancer detection and management- A review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018
  10. 37–70. [Crossref] 11. Lee SH, Chung J, Choi HY, et al. Evaluation of screening US–detected breast masses by combined use of elastography and color Doppler US with B-mode US in women with dense breasts: a multicenter prospective study. Radiology 2017
  11. 660–669. [Crossref] 12. Imtiaz S, MBBS, FCPS. Breast elastography: A new paradigm in diagnostic breast imaging. Appl Radiol 2018
  12. 14–19. [Crossref] 13. Lo CM, Lai YC, Chou YH, Chang RF. Quantitative breast lesion classification based on multichannel distributions in shear-wave imaging. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2015
  13. 354–361. [Crossref] 14. Zhang Q, Song S, Xiao Y, Chen S, Shi J, Zheng HR. Dual-mode artificially-intelligent diagnosis of breast tumours in shear-