MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392748966 · doi:10.1148/ryai.230079

Assistive AI in Lung Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Multinational Study in the United States and Japan

2024· article· en· W4392748966 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHamilton Health SciencesGoogle
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyReceiver operating characteristicLung cancerWorkflowMedical physicsLung cancer screeningMultinational corporationArtificial intelligenceGeneral surgerySurgeryPathologyInternal medicineComputer scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Just Accepted” papers have undergone full peer review and have been accepted for publication in Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. This article will undergo copyediting, layout, and proof review before it is published in its final version. Please note that during production of the final copyedited article, errors may be discovered which could affect the content. Purpose To evaluate the impact of an artificial intelligence (AI) assistant for lung cancer screening (LCS) on multinational clinical workflows. Materials and Methods An AI assistant for LCS was evaluated on two retrospective randomized multireader multicase studies, where 627 (141 cancer positive) low-dose chest CT cases were each read twice (with and without AI assistance) by experienced thoracic radiologists (6 US-based or 6 Japan-based), resulting in a total of 7,524 interpretations. Positive cases were defined as those within two years before a pathology-confirmed lung cancer diagnosis. Negative cases were defined as those without any subsequent cancer diagnosis for at least two years and were enriched for a spectrum of diverse nodules. The studies measured the readers’ level of suspicion (LoS, on a 0–100 scale), country-specific screening system scoring categories, and management recommendations. Evaluation metrics included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for LoS and sensitivity and specificity of recall recommendations. Results With AI assistance, the radiologists’ AUC increased by 0.023 (0.70 to 0.72, P = .02) for the US study and by 0.023 (0.93 to 0.96, P = .18) for the Japan study. Scoring system specificity for actionable findings increased 5.5% (57%–63%, P < .001) for the US study and 6.7% (23%–30%, P < .001) for the Japan study. There was no evidence of a difference in corresponding sensitivity between unassisted and AI-assisted reads for the US (67.3%–67.5%, P = .88) and Japan (98%–100%, P > .99) studies. Corresponding standalone AI AUC system performance was 0.75 95% CI [0.70–0.81] and 0.88 95%CI [0.78–0.97] for the US and Japan-based datasets, respectively. Conclusion The concurrent AI interface improved LCS specificity in both US and Japan-based reader studies, meriting further study in additional international screening environments. ©RSNA, 2024

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it