Insufficient evidence that AI breast cancer screening is accurate enough to replace human scrutiny

Better evidence needed before considering the future integration of AI into breast cancer screening programmes, say experts

Humans still seem to be better than technology when it comes to the accuracy of spotting possible cases of breast cancer during screening, suggests a review published online in The BMJ today.

The researchers say there is currently a lack of good quality evidence to support a policy of replacing human radiologists with artificial intelligence (AI) technology when screening for breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a leading cause of death among women worldwide and many countries have introduced mammography screening programmes to detect and treat it early. But examining mammograms for early signs of cancer is a high volume repetitive work for radiologists, and some cancers are missed.

Previous research has suggested that AI systems outperform humans and might soon be used instead of experienced radiologists. Yet a recent review of 23 studies highlighted evidence gaps and concerns about the methods used.

To address this uncertainty, the UK National Screening Committee commissioned a team of researchers from the University of Warwick to examine the accuracy of AI for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.

The researchers reviewed 12 studies carried out since 2010 involving data for 131,822 screened women in Sweden, the United States, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.

Overall, the quality of the methods used in the 12 studies was poor and their applicability to European or UK breast cancer screening programmes was low.

Three large studies involving 79,910 women compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist. Of these, 1,878 had screen-detected cancer or interval cancer (cancer diagnosed in-between routine screening appointments) within 12 months of screening.

The majority (34 out of 36 or 94%) of AI systems evaluated in these three studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than the consensus of two or more radiologists, which is the standard practice in Europe.

In contrast, five smaller studies involving 1,086 women reported that all of the AI systems evaluated were more accurate than a single radiologist. But the researchers note that these studies were at high risk of bias and their promising results are not replicated in larger studies.

In three studies, AI used as a pre-screen to triage which mammograms need to be examined by a radiologist and which do not screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists.

The authors point to some study limitations such as excluding non-English studies that might have contained relevant evidence, and they acknowledge that AI algorithms are short lived and constantly improving, so reported assessments of AI systems might be out of date by the time of study publication.

Nevertheless, use of stringent study inclusion criteria together with rigorous and systematic evaluation of study quality suggests their conclusions are robust.

As such, they say: “Current evidence on the use of AI systems in breast cancer screening is a long way from having the quality and quantity required for its implementation into clinical practice.”

They add: “Well designed comparative test accuracy studies, randomised controlled trials, and cohort studies in large screening populations are needed which evaluate commercially available AI systems in combination with radiologists in clinical practice.”

Tags : #BreastCancer #BreastCancerScreening #AI #TheBmj #Mammography

About the Author


Team Medicircle

Related Stories

Loading Please wait...

-Advertisements-




Trending Now

Exploring the Link Between Covid-19 Vaccination and Sudden Cardiac Arrests: ICMR StudyNovember 22, 2023
Powering the Future: China's Biodegradable Wireless System for Bioelectronic InnovationNovember 22, 2023
IMS BHU Pioneers Advanced Cardiac Care: Unveiling Cutting-Edge Technologies for Precise DiagnosisNovember 18, 2023
Inito's $6 Million Boost: Transforming Women's Health with AI-Backed Fertility MonitoringNovember 18, 2023
Madras High Court Advocates for Equality: PG Medical Students to Receive Incentive Marks for COVID-19 DutyNovember 18, 2023
Next-Gen Healthcare: CarePods and AI Redefine the Patient ExperienceNovember 17, 2023
Air Quality Crisis: Alarming Rise in Premature Births Linked to Air Quality in Begusarai, BiharNovember 17, 2023
Limerick Contest-2023: A Celebration of Wit and PoetryNovember 17, 2023
IIIT-Hyderabad among top 100 institutions for 5G Use Case LabNovember 17, 2023
Powerful, motivating and inspiring talks marked TEDx Hyderabad Women 2023 which was held with the theme "Two Steps ForwardNovember 17, 2023
Speaking the Diagnosis: How AI in Voice Analysis Is Revolutionizing Diabetes DetectionNovember 17, 2023
FDA Approves Zepbound: A New Medication for Weight Loss by Eli LillyNovember 17, 2023
CoverSelf Raises $8.2 Million in Seed Funding to Revolutionize Healthcare Claims with Innovative Fintech PlatformNovember 16, 2023
From Miracle to Medic: The Extraordinary Journey of India's First Paediatric Liver Transplant RecipientNovember 16, 2023
Combatting Chikungunya: Valneva's Chikungunya Vaccine Cleared by USFDA, Eyes India LaunchNovember 16, 2023
Global Corporate Summit 2023 with the theme Unlocking Opportunities in a Dynamic World heldNovember 16, 2023
2nd IHub-Data Mobility Summit heldNovember 16, 2023
Revolutionary AI-powered technology detects multiple abdominal pathologies simultaneouslyNovember 16, 2023
1 Out of 3 Stroke Patients Suffer Long-Term Health Complications, Says NeurologistNovember 16, 2023
Amrita Hospital, Kochi, Launches App for People with Swallowing DifficultiesNovember 15, 2023