Comparison of AI-integrated pathways with human-AI interaction in population mammographic screening for breast cancer

Artificial intelligence (AI) readers of mammograms compare favourably to individual radiologists in detecting breast cancer. However, AI readers cannot perform at the level of multi-reader systems used by screening programs in countries such as Australia, Sweden, and the UK. Therefore, implementation demands human-AI collaboration. Here, we use a large, high-quality retrospective mammography dataset from Victoria, Australia to conduct detailed simulations of five potential AI-integrated screening pathways, and examine human-AI interaction effects to explore automation bias. Operating an AI reader as a second reader or as a high confidence filter improves current screening outcomes by 1.9-2.5% in sensitivity and up to 0.6% in specificity, achieving 4.6-10.9% reduction in assessments and 48-80.7% reduction in human reads. Automation bias degrades performance in multi-reader settings but improves it for single-readers. This study provides insight into feasible approaches for AI-integrated screening pathways and prospective studies necessary prior to clinical adoption.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Communications
Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51725-8
Citations
33
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.12

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of AI-integrated pathways with human-AI interaction in population mammographic screening for breast cancer

Ravishankar Karthik, Enes Makalic, John L. Hopper, Jocelyn Lippey et al.
33 citations
Nature Communications
AI in cancer detection
11.12
article

Comparison of AI-integrated pathways with human-AI interaction in population mammographic screening for breast cancer

Ravishankar Karthik, Enes Makalic, John L. Hopper, Jocelyn Lippey, Gustavo Carneiro, Brendan Hill, Davis J. McCarthy, Michael S. Elliott, Carlos A. Peña‐Solórzano, Yuanhong Chen, Osamah M. Al-Qershi, Daniel F. Schmidt, Peter Brotchie, Tuong L. Nguyen, Helen Frazer, Prue C. Weideman, Chun Fung Kwok, Samantha Fox, Katrina Kunicki, Prabhathi Basnayake Ralalage, Chong Wang, Shuai Li
article en
33 citations

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) readers of mammograms compare favourably to individual radiologists in detecting breast cancer. However, AI readers cannot perform at the level of multi-reader systems used by screening programs in countries such as Australia, Sweden, and the UK. Therefore, implementation demands human-AI collaboration. Here, we use a large, high-quality retrospective mammography dataset from Victoria, Australia to conduct detailed simulations of five potential AI-integrated screening pathways, and examine human-AI interaction effects to explore automation bias. Operating an AI reader as a second reader or as a high confidence filter improves current screening outcomes by 1.9-2.5% in sensitivity and up to 0.6% in specificity, achieving 4.6-10.9% reduction in assessments and 48-80.7% reduction in human reads. Automation bias degrades performance in multi-reader settings but improves it for single-readers. This study provides insight into feasible approaches for AI-integrated screening pathways and prospective studies necessary prior to clinical adoption.

Nature CommunicationsVol. 15(1)
The University of Melbourne (AU), University of Surrey (GB), St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU), Australian Centre for Robotic Vision (AU), Torrens University Australia (AU), Melbourne Health (AU), Breastscreen Victoria (AU), Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance (AU), Monash University (AU), The University of Adelaide (AU), St Vincents Institute of Medical Research (AU)
Ramaciotti Foundations, Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care, Australian Government, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Medical Research Council, National Health and Medical Research Council
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
AI in cancer detection
11.12
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.