Artificial intelligence for imaging-based COVID-19 detection: Systematic review comparing added value of AI versus human readers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
A growing number of studies have examined whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems can support imaging-based diagnosis of COVID-19-caused pneumonia, including both gains in diagnostic performance and speed. However, what is currently missing is a combined appreciation of studies comparing human readers and AI.Methods
We followed PRISMA-DTA guidelines for our systematic review, searching EMBASE, PUBMED and Scopus databases. To gain insights into the potential value of AI methods, we focused on studies comparing the performance of human readers versus AI models or versus AI-supported human readings.Results
Our search identified 1270 studies, of which 12 fulfilled specific selection criteria. Concerning diagnostic performance, in testing datasets reported sensitivity was 42-100% (human readers, n = 9 studies), 60-95% (AI systems, n = 10) and 81-98% (AI-supported readers, n = 3), whilst reported specificity was 26-100% (human readers, n = 8), 61-96% (AI systems, n = 10) and 78-99% (AI-supported readings, n = 2). One study highlighted the potential of AI-supported readings for the assessment of lung lesion burden changes, whilst two studies indicated potential time savings for detection with AI.Conclusions
Our review indicates that AI systems or AI-supported human readings show less performance variability (interquartile range) in general, and may support the differentiation of COVID-19 pneumonia from other forms of pneumonia when used in high-prevalence and symptomatic populations. However, inconsistencies related to study design, reporting of data, areas of risk of bias, as well as limitations of statistical analyses complicate clear conclusions. We therefore support efforts for developing critical elements of study design when assessing the value of AI for diagnostic imaging.
SUBMITTER: Kriza C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8594127 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AlphaFold has burst into our lives. A powerful algorithm that underscores the strength of biological sequence data and artificial intelligence (AI). AlphaFold has appended projects and research directions. The database it has been creating promises an untold number of applications with vast potential impacts that are still difficult to surmise. AI approaches can revolutionize personalized treatments and usher in better-informed clinical trials. They promise to make giant leaps toward reshaping and revamping drug discovery strategies, selecting and prioritizing combinations of drug targets. Here, we briefly overview AI in structural biology, including in molecular dynamics simulations and prediction of microbiota-human protein-protein interactions. We highlight the advancements accomplished by the deep-learning-powered AlphaFold in protein structure prediction and their powerful impact on the life sciences. At the same time, AlphaFold does not resolve the decades-long protein folding challenge, nor does it identify the folding pathways. The models that AlphaFold provides do not capture conformational mechanisms like frustration and allostery, which are rooted in ensembles, and controlled by their dynamic distributions. Allostery and signaling are properties of populations. AlphaFold also does not generate ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins and regions, instead describing them by their low structural probabilities. Since AlphaFold generates single ranked structures, rather than conformational ensembles, it cannot elucidate the mechanisms of allosteric activating driver hotspot mutations nor of allosteric drug resistance. However, by capturing key features, deep learning techniques can use the single predicted conformation as the basis for generating a diverse ensemble.
| S-EPMC9442638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the past, the skills required to make an accurate dermatological diagnosis have required exposure to thousands of patients over many years. However, in recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made enormous advances, particularly in the area of image classification. This has led computer scientists to apply these techniques to develop algorithms that are able to recognize skin lesions, particularly melanoma. Since 2017, there have been numerous studies assessing the accuracy of algorithms, with some reporting that the accuracy matches or surpasses that of a dermatologist. While the principles underlying these methods are relatively straightforward, it can be challenging for the practising dermatologist to make sense of a plethora of unfamiliar terms in this domain. Here we explain the concepts of AI, machine learning, neural networks and deep learning, and explore the principles of how these tasks are accomplished. We critically evaluate the studies that have assessed the efficacy of these methods and discuss limitations and potential ethical issues. The burden of skin cancer is growing within the Western world, with major implications for both population skin health and the provision of dermatology services. AI has the potential to assist in the diagnosis of skin lesions and may have particular value at the interface between primary and secondary care. The emerging technology represents an exciting opportunity for dermatologists, who are the individuals best informed to explore the utility of this powerful novel diagnostic tool, and facilitate its safe and ethical implementation within healthcare systems.
| S-EPMC7497072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy. Yet people are often reluctant to trust automated systems, and some patient populations may be particularly distrusting. We sought to determine how diverse patient populations feel about the use of AI diagnostic tools, and whether framing and informing the choice affects uptake. To construct and pretest our materials, we conducted structured interviews with a diverse set of actual patients. We then conducted a pre-registered (osf.io/9y26x), randomized, blinded survey experiment in factorial design. A survey firm provided n = 2675 responses, oversampling minoritized populations. Clinical vignettes were randomly manipulated in eight variables with two levels each: disease severity (leukemia versus sleep apnea), whether AI is proven more accurate than human specialists, whether the AI clinic is personalized to the patient through listening and/or tailoring, whether the AI clinic avoids racial and/or financial biases, whether the Primary Care Physician (PCP) promises to explain and incorporate the advice, and whether the PCP nudges the patient towards AI as the established, recommended, and easy choice. Our main outcome measure was selection of AI clinic or human physician specialist clinic (binary, "AI uptake"). We found that with weighting representative to the U.S. population, respondents were almost evenly split (52.9% chose human doctor and 47.1% chose AI clinic). In unweighted experimental contrasts of respondents who met pre-registered criteria for engagement, a PCP's explanation that AI has proven superior accuracy increased uptake (OR = 1.48, CI 1.24-1.77, p < .001), as did a PCP's nudge towards AI as the established choice (OR = 1.25, CI: 1.05-1.50, p = .013), as did reassurance that the AI clinic had trained counselors to listen to the patient's unique perspectives (OR = 1.27, CI: 1.07-1.52, p = .008). Disease severity (leukemia versus sleep apnea) and other manipulations did not affect AI uptake significantly. Compared to White respondents, Black respondents selected AI less often (OR = .73, CI: .55-.96, p = .023) and Native Americans selected it more often (OR: 1.37, CI: 1.01-1.87, p = .041). Older respondents were less likely to choose AI (OR: .99, CI: .987-.999, p = .03), as were those who identified as politically conservative (OR: .65, CI: .52-.81, p < .001) or viewed religion as important (OR: .64, CI: .52-.77, p < .001). For each unit increase in education, the odds are 1.10 greater for selecting an AI provider (OR: 1.10, CI: 1.03-1.18, p = .004). While many patients appear resistant to the use of AI, accuracy information, nudges and a listening patient experience may help increase acceptance. To ensure that the benefits of AI are secured in clinical practice, future research on best methods of physician incorporation and patient decision making is required.
| S-EPMC10198520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCavernous hemangioma and schwannoma are tumors that both occur in the orbit. Because the treatment strategies of these two tumors are different, it is necessary to distinguish them at treatment initiation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is typically used to differentiate these two tumor types; however, they present similar features in MRI images which increases the difficulty of differential diagnosis. This study aims to devise and develop an artificial intelligence framework to improve the accuracy of clinicians' diagnoses and enable more effective treatment decisions by automatically distinguishing cavernous hemangioma from schwannoma.MethodsMaterial: As the study materials, we chose MRI images as the study materials that represented patients from diverse areas in China who had been referred to our center from more than 45 different hospitals. All images were initially acquired on films, which we scanned into digital versions and recut. Finally, 11,489 images of cavernous hemangioma (from 33 different hospitals) and 3,478 images of schwannoma (from 16 different hospitals) were collected. Labeling: All images were labeled using standard anatomical knowledge and pathological diagnosis. Training: Three types of models were trained in sequence (a total of 96 models), with each model including a specific improvement. The first two model groups were eye- and tumor-positioning models designed to reduce the identification scope, while the third model group consisted of classification models trained to make the final diagnosis.ResultsFirst, internal four-fold cross-validation processes were conducted for all the models. During the validation of the first group, the 32 eye-positioning models were able to localize the position of the eyes with an average precision of 100%. In the second group, the 28 tumor-positioning models were able to reach an average precision above 90%. Subsequently, using the third group, the accuracy of all 32 tumor classification models reached nearly 90%. Next, external validation processes of 32 tumor classification models were conducted. The results showed that the accuracy of the transverse T1-weighted contrast-enhanced sequence reached 91.13%; the accuracy of the remaining models was significantly lower compared with the ground truth.ConclusionsThe findings of this retrospective study show that an artificial intelligence framework can achieve high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in automated differential diagnosis between cavernous hemangioma and schwannoma in a real-world setting, which can help doctors determine appropriate treatments.
| S-EPMC7327353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the stand-alone diagnostic performances of AI-CAD and outcomes of AI-CAD detected abnormalities when applied to the mammographic interpretation workflow.MethodsFrom January 2016 to December 2017, 6499 screening mammograms of 5228 women were collected from a single screening facility. Historic reads of three radiologists were used as radiologist interpretation. A commercially-available AI-CAD was used for analysis. One radiologist not involved in interpretation had retrospectively reviewed the abnormality features and assessed the significance (negligible vs. need recall) of the AI-CAD marks. Ground truth in terms of cancer, benign or absence of abnormality was confirmed according to histopathologic diagnosis or negative results on the next-round screen.ResultsOf the 6499 mammograms, 6282 (96.7%) were in the negative, 189 (2.9%) were in the benign, and 28 (0.4%) were in the cancer group. AI-CAD detected 5 (17.9%, 5 of 28) of the 9 cancers that were intially interpreted as negative. Of the 648 AI-CAD recalls, 89.0% (577 of 648) were marks seen on examinations in the negative group, and 267 (41.2%) of the AI-CAD marks were considered to be negligible. Stand-alone AI-CAD has significantly higher recall rates (10.0% vs. 3.4%, P < 0.001) with comparable sensitivity and cancer detection rates (P = 0.086 and 0.102, respectively) when compared to the radiologists' interpretation.ConclusionAI-CAD detected 17.9% additional cancers on screening mammography that were initially overlooked by the radiologists. In spite of the additional cancer detection, AI-CAD had significantly higher recall rates in the clinical workflow, in which 89.0% of AI-CAD marks are on negative mammograms.
| S-EPMC10362167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Until vaccines and effective therapeutics become available, the practical solution to transit safely out of the current coronavirus disease 19 (CoVID-19) lockdown may include the implementation of an effective testing, tracing and tracking system. However, this requires a reliable and clinically validated diagnostic platform for the sensitive and specific identification of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we report on the development of a de novo, high-resolution and comparative genomics guided reverse-transcribed loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay. To further enhance the assay performance and to remove any subjectivity associated with operator interpretation of results, we engineered a novel hand-held smart diagnostic device. The robust diagnostic device was further furnished with automated image acquisition and processing algorithms and the collated data was processed through artificial intelligence (AI) pipelines to further reduce the assay run time and the subjectivity of the colorimetric LAMP detection. This advanced AI algorithm-implemented LAMP (ai-LAMP) assay, targeting the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene, showed high analytical sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2. A total of ~200 coronavirus disease (CoVID-19)-suspected NHS patient samples were tested using the platform and it was shown to be reliable, highly specific and significantly more sensitive than the current gold standard qRT-PCR. Therefore, this system could provide an efficient and cost-effective platform to detect SARS-CoV-2 in resource-limited laboratories.
| S-EPMC7552048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A multitude of studies have explored the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in providing diagnostic support to radiologists, pathologists, and urologists in prostate cancer detection, risk-stratification, and management. This review provides a comprehensive overview of relevant literature regarding the use of AI models in (1) detecting prostate cancer on radiology images (magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging), (2) detecting prostate cancer on histopathology images of prostate biopsy tissue, and (3) assisting in supporting tasks for prostate cancer detection (prostate gland segmentation, MRI-histopathology registration, MRI-ultrasound registration). We discuss both the potential of these AI models to assist in the clinical workflow of prostate cancer diagnosis, as well as the current limitations including variability in training data sets, algorithms, and evaluation criteria. We also discuss ongoing challenges and what is needed to bridge the gap between academic research on AI for prostate cancer and commercial solutions that improve routine clinical care.
| S-EPMC9554123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo compare two artificial intelligence software packages performing normative brain volumetry and explore whether they could differently impact dementia diagnostics in a clinical context.MethodsSixty patients (20 Alzheimer's disease, 20 frontotemporal dementia, 20 mild cognitive impairment) and 20 controls were included retrospectively. One MRI per subject was processed by software packages from two proprietary manufacturers, producing two quantitative reports per subject. Two neuroradiologists assigned forced-choice diagnoses using only the normative volumetry data in these reports. They classified the volumetric profile as "normal," or "abnormal", and if "abnormal," they specified the most likely dementia subtype. Differences between the packages' clinical impact were assessed by comparing (1) agreement between diagnoses based on software output; (2) diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity; and (3) diagnostic confidence. Quantitative outputs were also compared to provide context to any diagnostic differences.ResultsDiagnostic agreement between packages was moderate, for distinguishing normal and abnormal volumetry (K = .41-.43) and for specific diagnoses (K = .36-.38). However, each package yielded high inter-observer agreement when distinguishing normal and abnormal profiles (K = .73-.82). Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were not different between packages. Diagnostic confidence was different between packages for one rater. Whole brain intracranial volume output differed between software packages (10.73%, p < .001), and normative regional data interpreted for diagnosis correlated weakly to moderately (rs = .12-.80).ConclusionDifferent artificial intelligence software packages for quantitative normative assessment of brain MRI can produce distinct effects at the level of clinical interpretation. Clinics should not assume that different packages are interchangeable, thus recommending internal evaluation of packages before adoption.
| S-EPMC9177657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The amount of data collected and managed in (bio)medicine is ever-increasing. Thus, there is a need to rapidly and efficiently collect, analyze, and characterize all this information. Artificial intelligence (AI), with an emphasis on deep learning, holds great promise in this area and is already being successfully applied to basic research, diagnosis, drug discovery, and clinical trials. Rare diseases (RDs), which are severely underrepresented in basic and clinical research, can particularly benefit from AI technologies. Of the more than 7000 RDs described worldwide, only 5% have a treatment. The ability of AI technologies to integrate and analyze data from different sources (e.g., multi-omics, patient registries, and so on) can be used to overcome RDs' challenges (e.g., low diagnostic rates, reduced number of patients, geographical dispersion, and so on). Ultimately, RDs' AI-mediated knowledge could significantly boost therapy development. Presently, there are AI approaches being used in RDs and this review aims to collect and summarize these advances. A section dedicated to congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG), a particular group of orphan RDs that can serve as a potential study model for other common diseases and RDs, has also been included.
| S-EPMC6947640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInvestigate the use of advanced natural language processing models to streamline the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts.Materials and methodsFor this purpose, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly texts. Our AI-based revision workflow employs a prompt generator that incorporates manuscript metadata into templates, generating section-specific instructions for the language model. The model then generates revised versions of each paragraph for human authors to review. We evaluated this methodology through 5 case studies of existing manuscripts, including the revision of this manuscript.ResultsOur results indicate that these models, despite some limitations, can grasp complex academic concepts and enhance text quality. All changes to the manuscript are tracked using a version control system, ensuring transparency in distinguishing between human- and machine-generated text.ConclusionsGiven the significant time researchers invest in crafting prose, incorporating large language models into the scholarly writing process can significantly improve the type of knowledge work performed by academics. Our approach also enables scholars to concentrate on critical aspects of their work, such as the novelty of their ideas, while automating tedious tasks like adhering to specific writing styles. Although the use of AI-assisted tools in scientific authoring is controversial, our approach, which focuses on revising human-written text and provides change-tracking transparency, can mitigate concerns regarding AI's role in scientific writing.
| S-EPMC11339502 | biostudies-literature