Development and validation of an infrared-artificial intelligence software for breast cancer detection.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
In countries where access to mammography equipment and skilled personnel is limited, most breast cancer (BC) cases are detected in locally advanced stages. Infrared breast thermography is recognized as an adjunctive technique for the detection of BC due to its advantages such as safety (by not emitting ionizing radiation nor applying any stress to the breast), portability, and low cost. Improved by advanced computational analytics techniques, infrared thermography could be a valuable complementary screening technique to detect BC at early stages. In this work, an infrared-artificial intelligence (AI) software was developed and evaluated to help physicians to identify potential BC cases.Methods
Several AI algorithms were developed and evaluated, which were learned from a proprietary database of 2,700 patients, with BC cases that were confirmed through mammography, ultrasound, and biopsy. Following by evaluation of the algorithms, the best AI algorithm (infrared-AI software) was submitted to a clinic validation process in which its ability to detect BC was compared to mammography evaluations in a double-blind test.Results
The infrared-AI software demonstrated efficiency values of 94.87% sensitivity, 72.26% specificity, 30.08% positive predictive value (PPV), and 99.12% negative predictive value (NPV), whereas the reference mammography evaluation reached 100% sensitivity, 97.10% specificity, 81.25% PPV, and 100% NPV.Conclusions
The infrared-AI software here developed shows high BC sensitivity (94.87%) and high NPV (99.12%). Therefore, it is proposed as a complementary screening tool for BC.
SUBMITTER: Martin-Del-Campo-Mena E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10189354 | biostudies-literature | 2023
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Development and validation of an infrared-artificial intelligence software for breast cancer detection.
Martín-Del-Campo-Mena Enrique E Sánchez-Méndez Pedro A PA Ruvalcaba-Limon Eva E Lazcano-Ramírez Federico M FM Hernández-Santiago Andrés A Juárez-Aburto Jorge A JA Larios-Cruz Kictzia Y KY Hernández-Gómez L Enrique LE Merino-González J Andrei JA González-Mejía Yessica Y
Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy 20230427 2
<h4>Aim</h4>In countries where access to mammography equipment and skilled personnel is limited, most breast cancer (BC) cases are detected in locally advanced stages. Infrared breast thermography is recognized as an adjunctive technique for the detection of BC due to its advantages such as safety (by not emitting ionizing radiation nor applying any stress to the breast), portability, and low cost. Improved by advanced computational analytics techniques, infrared thermography could be a valuable ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceEarly breast cancer detection is associated with lower morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo examine whether a commercial artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for breast cancer detection could estimate the development of future cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study of 116 495 women aged 50 to 69 years with no prior history of breast cancer before they underwent at least 3 consecutive biennial screening examinations used scores from an AI algorithm (INSIGHT MMG, version 1.1.7.2; Lunit Inc; used September 28, 2022, to April 5, 2023) for breast cancer detection and screening data from multiple, consecutive rounds of mammography performed from September 13, 2004, to December 21, 2018, at 9 breast centers in Norway. The statistical analyses were performed from September 2023 to August 2024.ExposureArtificial intelligence algorithm score indicating suspicion for the presence of breast cancer. The algorithm provided a continuous cancer detection score for each examination ranging from 0 to 100, with increasing values indicating a higher likelihood of cancer being present on the current mammogram.Main outcomes and measuresMaximum AI algorithm score for cancer detection and absolute difference in score among breasts of women developing screening-detected cancer, women with interval cancer, and women who screened negative.ResultsThe mean (SD) age at the first study round was 58.5 (4.5) years for 1265 women with screening-detected cancer in the third round, 57.4 (4.6) years for 342 women with interval cancer after 3 negative screening rounds, and 56.4 (4.9) years for 116 495 women without breast cancer all 3 screening rounds. The mean (SD) absolute differences in AI scores among breasts of women developing screening-detected cancer were 21.3 (28.1) at the first study round, 30.7 (32.5) at the second study round, and 79.0 (28.9) at the third study round. The mean (SD) differences prior to interval cancer were 19.7 (27.0) at the first study round, 21.0 (27.7) at the second study round, and 34.0 (33.6) at the third study round. The mean (SD) differences among women who did not develop breast cancer were 9.9 (17.5) at the first study round, 9.6 (17.4) at the second study round, and 9.3 (17.3) at the third study round. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the absolute difference were 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61-0.65) at the first study round, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.74) at the second study round, and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.96) at the third study round for screening-detected cancer and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.67) at the first study round, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.62-0.68) at the second study round, and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79) at the third study round for interval cancers.Conclusions and relevanceIn this retrospective cohort study of women undergoing screening mammography, mean absolute AI scores were higher for breasts developing vs not developing cancer 4 to 6 years before their eventual detection. These findings suggest that commercial AI algorithms developed for breast cancer detection may identify women at high risk of a future breast cancer, offering a pathway for personalized screening approaches that can lead to earlier cancer diagnosis.
| S-EPMC11450515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease worldwide, with over 2.26 million new cases in 2020. Its diagnosis is determined by a histological review of breast biopsy specimens, which can be labor-intensive, subjective, and error-prone. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools can support cancer detection and classification in breast biopsies ensuring rapid, accurate, and objective diagnosis. We present here the development, external clinical validation, and deployment in routine use of an AI-based quality control solution for breast biopsy review. The underlying AI algorithm is trained to identify 51 different types of clinical and morphological features, and it achieves very high accuracy in a large, multi-site validation study. Specifically, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for the detection of invasive carcinoma and of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are 0.99 (specificity and sensitivity of 93.57 and 95.51%, respectively) and 0.98 (specificity and sensitivity of 93.79 and 93.20% respectively), respectively. The AI algorithm differentiates well between subtypes of invasive and different grades of in situ carcinomas with an AUC of 0.97 for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) vs. invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and AUC of 0.92 for DCIS high grade vs. low grade/atypical ductal hyperplasia, respectively, as well as accurately identifies stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) with an AUC of 0.965. Deployment of this AI solution as a real-time quality control solution in clinical routine leads to the identification of cancers initially missed by the reviewing pathologist, demonstrating both clinical utility and accuracy in real-world clinical application.
| S-EPMC9723672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to reduce false-positive screens, increase cancer detection rates (CDRs), and address resourcing challenges faced by breast screening programs. We compared the accuracy of AI versus radiologists in real-world population breast cancer screening, and estimated potential impacts on CDR, recall and workload for simulated AI-radiologist reading.MethodsExternal validation of a commercially-available AI algorithm in a retrospective cohort of 108,970 consecutive mammograms from a population-based screening program, with ascertained outcomes (including interval cancers by registry linkage). Area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity for AI were compared with radiologists who interpreted the screens in practice. CDR and recall were estimated for simulated AI-radiologist reading (with arbitration) and compared with program metrics.FindingsThe AUC for AI was 0.83 compared with 0.93 for radiologists. At a prospective threshold, sensitivity for AI (0.67; 95% CI: 0.64-0.70) was comparable to radiologists (0.68; 95% CI: 0.66-0.71) with lower specificity (0.81 [95% CI: 0.81-0.81] versus 0.97 [95% CI: 0.97-0.97]). Recall rate for AI-radiologist reading (3.14%) was significantly lower than for the BSWA program (3.38%) (-0.25%; 95% CI: -0.31 to -0.18; P < 0.001). CDR was also lower (6.37 versus 6.97 per 1000) (-0.61; 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.44; P < 0.001); however, AI detected interval cancers that were not found by radiologists (0.72 per 1000; 95% CI: 0.57-0.90). AI-radiologist reading increased arbitration but decreased overall screen-reading volume by 41.4% (95% CI: 41.2-41.6).InterpretationReplacement of one radiologist by AI (with arbitration) resulted in lower recall and overall screen-reading volume. There was a small reduction in CDR for AI-radiologist reading. AI detected interval cases that were not identified by radiologists, suggesting potentially higher CDR if radiologists were unblinded to AI findings. These results indicate AI's potential role as a screen-reader of mammograms, but prospective trials are required to determine whether CDR could improve if AI detection was actioned in double-reading with arbitration.FundingNational Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
| S-EPMC9996220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImprovement in recognition and referral of pulmonary fibrosis (PF) is vital to improving patient outcomes within interstitial lung disease. We determined the performance metrics and processing time of an artificial intelligence triage and notification software, ScreenDx-LungFibrosis™, developed to improve detection of PF.MethodsScreenDx-LungFibrosis™ was applied to chest computed tomography (CT) scans from multisource data. Device output (+/- PF) was compared to clinical diagnosis (+/- PF), and diagnostic performance was evaluated. Primary endpoints included device sensitivity and specificity > 80% and processing time < 4.5 min.ResultsOf 3,018 patients included, PF was present in 22.9%. ScreenDx-LungFibrosis™ detected PF with a sensitivity and specificity of 91.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 89.0-93.3%) and 95.1% (95% CI: 94.2-96.0%), respectively. Mean processing time was 27.6 s (95% CI: 26.0 - 29.1 s).ConclusionsScreenDx-LungFibrosis™ accurately and reliably identified PF with a rapid per-case processing time, underscoring its potential for transformative improvement in PF outcomes when routinely applied to chest CTs.
| S-EPMC10563821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the accuracy and impact of artificial intelligence (AI) software assistance in lung cancer screening using CT.MethodsA systematic review of CE-marked, AI-based software for automated detection and analysis of nodules in CT lung cancer screening was conducted. Multiple databases including Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 2012 to March 2023. Primary research reporting test accuracy or impact on reading time or clinical management was included. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to assess risk of bias. We undertook narrative synthesis.ResultsEleven studies evaluating six different AI-based software and reporting on 19 770 patients were eligible. All were at high risk of bias with multiple applicability concerns. Compared with unaided reading, AI-assisted reading was faster and generally improved sensitivity (+5% to +20% for detecting/categorising actionable nodules; +3% to +15% for detecting/categorising malignant nodules), with lower specificity (-7% to -3% for correctly detecting/categorising people without actionable nodules; -8% to -6% for correctly detecting/categorising people without malignant nodules). AI assistance tended to increase the proportion of nodules allocated to higher risk categories. Assuming 0.5% cancer prevalence, these results would translate into additional 150-750 cancers detected per million people attending screening but lead to an additional 59 700 to 79 600 people attending screening without cancer receiving unnecessary CT surveillance.ConclusionsAI assistance in lung cancer screening may improve sensitivity but increases the number of false-positive results and unnecessary surveillance. Future research needs to increase the specificity of AI-assisted reading and minimise risk of bias and applicability concerns through improved study design.Prospero registration numberCRD42021298449.
| S-EPMC11503082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Supervised machine learning methods [both radiomics and convolutional neural network (CNN)-based deep learning] are usually employed to develop artificial intelligence models with medical images for computer-assisted diagnosis and prognosis of diseases. A classical machine learning-based modeling workflow involves a series of interconnected components and various algorithms, but this makes it challenging, tedious, and labor intensive for radiologists and researchers to build customized models for specific clinical applications if they lack expertise in machine learning methods. We developed a user-friendly artificial intelligence-assisted diagnosis modeling software (AIMS) platform, which supplies standardized machine learning-based modeling workflows for computer-assisted diagnosis and prognosis systems with medical images. In contrast to other existing software platforms, AIMS contains both radiomics and CNN-based deep learning workflows, making it an all-in-one software platform for machine learning-based medical image analysis. The modular design of AIMS allows users to build machine learning models easily, test models comprehensively, and fairly compare the performance of different models in a specific application. The graphical user interface (GUI) enables users to process large numbers of medical images without programming or script addition. Furthermore, AIMS also provides a flexible image processing toolkit (e.g., semiautomatic segmentation, registration, morphological operations) to rapidly create lesion labels for multiphase analysis, multiregion analysis of an individual tumor (e.g., tumor mass and peritumor), and multimodality analysis. The functionality and efficiency of AIMS were demonstrated in 3 independent experiments in radiation oncology, where multiphase, multiregion, and multimodality analyses were performed, respectively. For clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) Fuhrman grading with multiphase analysis (sample size =187), the area under the curve (AUC) value of the AIMS was 0.776; for ccRCC Fuhrman grading with multiregion analysis (sample size =177), the AUC value of the AIMS was 0.848; for prostate cancer Gleason grading with multimodality analysis (sample size =206), the AUC value of the AIMS was 0.980. AIMS provides a user-friendly infrastructure for radiologists and researchers, lowering the barrier to building customized machine learning-based computer-assisted diagnosis models for medical image analysis.
| S-EPMC10644131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Artificial intelligence (AI) systems performing at radiologist-like levels in the evaluation of digital mammography (DM) would improve breast cancer screening accuracy and efficiency. We aimed to compare the stand-alone performance of an AI system to that of radiologists in detecting breast cancer in DM. METHODS:Nine multi-reader, multi-case study datasets previously used for different research purposes in seven countries were collected. Each dataset consisted of DM exams acquired with systems from four different vendors, multiple radiologists' assessments per exam, and ground truth verified by histopathological analysis or follow-up, yielding a total of 2652 exams (653 malignant) and interpretations by 101 radiologists (28 296 independent interpretations). An AI system analyzed these exams yielding a level of suspicion of cancer present between 1 and 10. The detection performance between the radiologists and the AI system was compared using a noninferiority null hypothesis at a margin of 0.05. RESULTS:The performance of the AI system was statistically noninferior to that of the average of the 101 radiologists. The AI system had a 0.840 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.820 to 0.860) area under the ROC curve and the average of the radiologists was 0.814 (95% CI = 0.787 to 0.841) (difference 95% CI = -0.003 to 0.055). The AI system had an AUC higher than 61.4% of the radiologists. CONCLUSIONS:The evaluated AI system achieved a cancer detection accuracy comparable to an average breast radiologist in this retrospective setting. Although promising, the performance and impact of such a system in a screening setting needs further investigation.
| S-EPMC6748773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAmyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) are brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings associated with the use of amyloid-β-directed monoclonal antibody therapies in Alzheimer disease (AD). ARIA monitoring is important to inform treatment dosing decisions and might be improved through assistive software.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical performance of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based software tool for assisting radiological interpretation of brain MRI scans in patients monitored for ARIA.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study used a multiple-reader multiple-case design to evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiologists assisted by the software vs unassisted. The study enrolled 16 US Board of Radiology-certified radiologists to perform radiological reading with (assisted) and without the software (unassisted). The study encompassed 199 retrospective cases, where each case consisted of a predosing baseline and a postdosing follow-up MRI of patients from aducanumab clinical trials PRIME, EMERGE, and ENGAGE. Statistical analysis was performed from April to July 2023.ExposuresUse of icobrain aria, an AI-based assistive software for ARIA detection and quantification.Main outcomes and measuresCoprimary end points were the difference in diagnostic accuracy between assisted and unassisted detection of ARIA-E (edema and/or sulcal effusion) and ARIA-H (microhemorrhage and/or superficial siderosis) independently, assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).ResultsAmong the 199 participants included in this study of radiological reading performance, mean (SD) age was 70.4 (7.2) years; 105 (52.8%) were female; 23 (11.6%) were Asian, 1 (0.5%) was Black, 157 (78.9%) were White, and 18 (9.0%) were other or unreported race and ethnicity. Among the 16 radiological readers included, 2 were specialized neuroradiologists (12.5%), 11 were male individuals (68.8%), 7 were individuals working in academic hospitals (43.8%), and they had a mean (SD) of 9.5 (5.1) years of experience. Radiologists assisted by the software were significantly superior in detecting ARIA than unassisted radiologists, with a mean assisted AUC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91) for ARIA-E detection (AUC improvement of 0.05 [95% CI, 0.02-0.08]; P = .001]) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78-0.87) for ARIA-H detection (AUC improvement of 0.04 [95% CI, 0.02-0.07]; P = .001). Sensitivity was significantly higher in assisted reading compared with unassisted reading (87% vs 71% for ARIA-E detection; 79% vs 69% for ARIA-H detection), while specificity remained above 80% for the detection of both ARIA types.Conclusions and relevanceThis diagnostic study found that radiological reading performance for ARIA detection and diagnosis was significantly better when using the AI-based assistive software. Hence, the software has the potential to be a clinically important tool to improve safety monitoring and management of patients with AD treated with amyloid-β-directed monoclonal antibody therapies.
| S-EPMC10862143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSkin cancer is the most common cancer type affecting humans. Traditional skin cancer diagnosis methods are costly, require a professional physician, and take time. Hence, to aid in diagnosing skin cancer, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being used, including shallow and deep machine learning-based methodologies that are trained to detect and classify skin cancer using computer algorithms and deep neural networks.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify and group the different types of AI-based technologies used to detect and classify skin cancer. The study also examined the reliability of the selected papers by studying the correlation between the data set size and the number of diagnostic classes with the performance metrics used to evaluate the models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for papers using Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM DL), and Ovid MEDLINE databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The studies included in this scoping review had to fulfill several selection criteria: being specifically about skin cancer, detecting or classifying skin cancer, and using AI technologies. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers. Extracted data were narratively synthesized, where studies were grouped based on the diagnostic AI techniques and their evaluation metrics.ResultsWe retrieved 906 papers from the 3 databases, of which 53 were eligible for this review. Shallow AI-based techniques were used in 14 studies, and deep AI-based techniques were used in 39 studies. The studies used up to 11 evaluation metrics to assess the proposed models, where 39 studies used accuracy as the primary evaluation metric. Overall, studies that used smaller data sets reported higher accuracy.ConclusionsThis paper examined multiple AI-based skin cancer detection models. However, a direct comparison between methods was hindered by the varied use of different evaluation metrics and image types. Performance scores were affected by factors such as data set size, number of diagnostic classes, and techniques. Hence, the reliability of shallow and deep models with higher accuracy scores was questionable since they were trained and tested on relatively small data sets of a few diagnostic classes.
| S-EPMC8663507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Gleason grading system has been the most reliable tool for the prognosis of prostate cancer since its development. However, its clinical application remains limited by interobserver variability in grading and quantification, which has negative consequences for risk assessment and clinical management of prostate cancer.ObjectiveTo examine the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted approach to prostate cancer grading and quantification.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study was conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from August 2, 2017, to December 30, 2019. The study chronologically selected 589 men with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer who received care in the University of Wisconsin Health System between January 1, 2005, and February 28, 2017. A total of 1000 biopsy slides (1 or 2 slides per patient) were selected and scanned to create digital whole-slide images, which were used to develop and validate a deep convolutional neural network-based AI-powered platform. The whole-slide images were divided into a training set (n = 838) and validation set (n = 162). Three experienced academic urological pathologists (W.H., K.A.I., and R.H., hereinafter referred to as pathologists 1, 2, and 3, respectively) were involved in the validation. Data were collected between December 29, 2018, and December 20, 2019, and analyzed from January 4, 2020, to March 1, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresAccuracy of prostate cancer detection by the AI-powered platform and comparison of prostate cancer grading and quantification performed by the 3 pathologists using manual vs AI-assisted methods.ResultsAmong 589 men with biopsy slides, the mean (SD) age was 63.8 (8.2) years, the mean (SD) prebiopsy prostate-specific antigen level was 10.2 (16.2) ng/mL, and the mean (SD) total cancer volume was 15.4% (20.1%). The AI system was able to distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostatic epithelium and stroma with high accuracy at the patch-pixel level, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.95). The AI system achieved almost perfect agreement with the training pathologist (pathologist 1) in detecting prostate cancer at the patch-pixel level (weighted κ = 0.97; asymptotic 95% CI, 0.96-0.98) and in grading prostate cancer at the slide level (weighted κ = 0.98; asymptotic 95% CI, 0.96-1.00). Use of the AI-assisted method was associated with significant improvements in the concordance of prostate cancer grading and quantification between the 3 pathologists (eg, pathologists 1 and 2: 90.1% agreement using AI-assisted method vs 84.0% agreement using manual method; P < .001) and significantly higher weighted κ values for all pathologists (eg, pathologists 2 and 3: weighted κ = 0.92 [asymptotic 95% CI, 0.90-0.94] for AI-assisted method vs 0.76 [asymptotic 95% CI, 0.71-0.80] for manual method; P < .001) compared with the manual method.Conclusions and relevanceIn this diagnostic study, an AI-powered platform was able to detect, grade, and quantify prostate cancer with high accuracy and efficiency and was associated with significant reductions in interobserver variability. These results suggest that an AI-powered platform could potentially transform histopathological evaluation and improve risk stratification and clinical management of prostate cancer.
| S-EPMC8567112 | biostudies-literature