Artificial Intelligence In Medical Imaging Research Articles

Automatic segmentation of prostate zonal anatomy on MRI: a systematic review of the literature

ObjectivesAccurate zonal segmentation of prostate boundaries on MRI is a critical prerequisite for automated prostate cancer detection based on PI-RADS. Many articles have been published describing deep learning methods offering great promise for fast and accurate segmentation of prostate zonal anatomy. The objective of this review was to provide a detailed analysis and comparison of applicability and efficiency of the published methods for automatic segmentation of prostate zonal anatomy by systematically reviewing the current literature.MethodsA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was conducted until June 30, 2021, using PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and EMBase databases. Risk of bias and applicability based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria adjusted with Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) were assessed.ResultsA total of 458 articles were identified, and 33 were included and reviewed. Only 2 articles had a low risk of bias for all four QUADAS-2 domains. In the remaining, insufficient details about database constitution and segmentation protocol provided sources of bias (inclusion criteria, MRI acquisition, ground truth). Eighteen different types of terminology for prostate zone segmentation were found, while 4 anatomic zones are described on MRI. Only 2 authors used a blinded reading, and 4 assessed inter-observer variability.ConclusionsOur review identified numerous methodological flaws and underlined biases precluding us from performing quantitative analysis for this review. This implies low robustness and low applicability in clinical practice of the evaluated methods. Actually, there is not yet consensus on quality criteria for database constitution and zonal segmentation methodology.

Radiomics-based machine learning models for prediction of medulloblastoma subgroups: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test performance.

Medulloblastomas are a major cause of cancer-related mortality in the pediatric population. Four molecular groups have been identified, and these molecular groups drive risk stratification, prognostic modeling, and the development of novel treatment modalities. It has been demonstrated that radiomics-based machine learning (ML) models are effective at predicting the diagnosis, molecular class, and grades of CNS tumors. To assess radiomics-based ML models' diagnostic performance in predicting medulloblastoma subgroups and the methodological quality of the studies. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed; the last search was conducted on 1 May 2022. Studies that predicted all four medulloblastoma subgroups in patients with histopathologically confirmed medulloblastoma and reporting area under the curve (AUC) values were included in the study. The quality assessments were conducted according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). A meta-analysis of radiomics-based ML studies' diagnostic performance for the preoperative evaluation of medulloblastoma subgrouping was performed. Five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding patient selection, two studies indicated an unclear risk of bias according to the QUADAS-2. The five studies had an average CLAIM score and compliance score of 23.2 and 0.57, respectively. The meta-analysis showed pooled AUCs of 0.88, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.88 for WNT, SHH, group 3, and group 4 for classification, respectively. Radiomics-based ML studies have good classification performance in predicting medulloblastoma subgroups, with AUCs >0.80 in every subgroup. To be applied to clinical practice, they need methodological quality improvement and stability.

Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging-based machine learning in Alzheimer's disease detection: a meta-analysis.

Advanced machine learning (ML) algorithms can assist rapid medical image recognition and realize automatic, efficient, noninvasive, and convenient diagnosis. We aim to further evaluate the diagnostic performance of ML to distinguish patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) from normal older adults based on structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant literature published up until July 2021. We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool and Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) to evaluate all included studies' quality and potential bias. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the Deeks' test was used to assess publication bias. We included 24 models based on different brain features extracted by ML algorithms in 19 papers. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for ML in detecting AD were 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.89), 0.88 (95%CI 0.84-0.91), 7.15 (95%CI 5.40-9.47), 0.17 (95%CI 0.12-0.22), 43.34 (95%CI 26.89-69.84), and 0.93 (95%CI 0.91-0.95). ML using structural MRI data performed well in diagnosing probable AD patients and normal elderly. However, more high-quality, large-scale prospective studies are needed to further enhance the reliability and generalizability of ML for clinical applications before it can be introduced into clinical practice.

Preventing Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging From Perpetuating Health Care Biases and Disparities.

Artificial intelligence (AI) deep learning algorithms promise to aid radiologists in disease detection and prediction. Extensive efforts are being made to create, train, and test AI algorithms on imaging data sets for these purposes. More recently, it has been demonstrated that deep learning AI algorithms can accurately detect racial and sociodemographic characteristics. In one highly publicized article, study investigators demonstrated that their deep learning model could identify patient race solely on the basis of images from x-rays, CT scans, and mammograms [1].

Toward Foundational Deep Learning Models for Medical Imaging in the New Era of Transformer Networks.

Deep learning models are currently the cornerstone of artificial intelligence in medical imaging. While progress is still being made, the generic technological core of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has had only modest innovations over the last several years, if at all. There is thus a need for improvement. More recently, transformer networks have emerged that replace convolutions with a complex attention mechanism, and they have already matched or exceeded the performance of CNNs in many tasks. Transformers need very large amounts of training data, even more than CNNs, but obtaining well-curated labeled data is expensive and difficult. A possible solution to this issue would be transfer learning with pretraining on a self-supervised task using very large amounts of unlabeled medical data. This pretrained network could then be fine-tuned on specific medical imaging tasks with relatively modest data requirements. The authors believe that the availability of a large-scale, three-dimension-capable, and extensively pretrained transformer model would be highly beneficial to the medical imaging and research community. In this article, authors discuss the challenges and obstacles of training a very large medical imaging transformer, including data needs, biases, training tasks, network architecture, privacy concerns, and computational requirements. The obstacles are substantial but not insurmountable for resourceful collaborative teams that may include academia and information technology industry partners. © RSNA, 2022 Keywords: Computer-aided Diagnosis (CAD), Informatics, Transfer Learning, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN).

Value assessment of artificial intelligence in medical imaging: a scoping review

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is seen as one of the major disrupting forces in the future healthcare system. However, the assessment of the value of these new technologies is still unclear, and no agreed international health technology assessment-based guideline exists. This study provides an overview of the available literature in the value assessment of AI in the field of medical imaging.MethodsWe performed a systematic scoping review of published studies between January 2016 and September 2020 using 10 databases (Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and six related databases of grey literature). Information about the context (country, clinical area, and type of study) and mentioned domains with specific outcomes and items were extracted. An existing domain classification, from a European assessment framework, was used as a point of departure, and extracted data were grouped into domains and content analysis of data was performed covering predetermined themes.ResultsSeventy-nine studies were included out of 5890 identified articles. An additional seven studies were identified by searching reference lists, and the analysis was performed on 86 included studies. Eleven domains were identified: (1) health problem and current use of technology, (2) technology aspects, (3) safety assessment, (4) clinical effectiveness, (5) economics, (6) ethical analysis, (7) organisational aspects, (8) patients and social aspects, (9) legal aspects, (10) development of AI algorithm, performance metrics and validation, and (11) other aspects. The frequency of mentioning a domain varied from 20 to 78% within the included papers. Only 15/86 studies were actual assessments of AI technologies. The majority of data were statements from reviews or papers voicing future needs or challenges of AI research, i.e. not actual outcomes of evaluations.ConclusionsThis review regarding value assessment of AI in medical imaging yielded 86 studies including 11 identified domains. The domain classification based on European assessment framework proved useful and current analysis added one new domain. Included studies had a broad range of essential domains about addressing AI technologies highlighting the importance of domains related to legal and ethical aspects.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging: A Nationwide Pilot Survey of Trainees in Saudi Arabia.

Artificial intelligence is dramatically transforming medical imaging. In Saudi Arabia, there are a lack of studies assessing the level of artificial intelligence use and reliably determining the perceived impact of artificial intelligence on the radiology workflow and the profession. We assessed the levels of artificial intelligence use among radiology trainees and correlated the perceived impact of artificial intelligence on the workflow and profession with the behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence. This cross-sectional study enrolled radiology trainees from Saudi Arabia, and a 5-part-structured questionnaire was disseminated. The items concerning the perceived impact of artificial intelligence on the radiology workflow conformed to the six-step standard workflow in radiology, which includes ordering and scheduling, protocoling and acquisition, image interpretation, reporting, communication, and billing. We included 98 participants. Few used artificial intelligence in routine practice (7%). The perceived impact of artificial intelligence on the radiology workflow was at a considerable level in all radiology workflow steps (range, 3.64-3.97 out of 5). Behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence was linearly correlated with the perceptions of its impact on the radiology workflow and on the profession (p < 0.001). Artificial intelligence is used at a low level in radiology. The perceived impact of artificial intelligence on radiology workflow and the profession is correlated to an increase in behavioral intention to use artificial intelligence. Thus, increasing awareness about the positive impact of artificial intelligence can improve its adoption.

Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Reporting Adherence in Peer-Reviewed and Preprint Manuscripts With the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores: A Meta-Research Study.

Purpose: To establish reporting adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) in diagnostic accuracy AI studies with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), and to compare completeness of reporting between peer-reviewed manuscripts and preprints. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv were retrospectively searched for 100 diagnostic accuracy medical imaging AI studies in peer-reviewed journals and preprint platforms with the highest AAS since the release of CLAIM to June 24, 2021. Studies were evaluated for adherence to the 42-item CLAIM checklist with comparison between peer-reviewed manuscripts and preprints. The impact of additional factors was explored including body region, models on COVID-19 diagnosis and journal impact factor. Results: Median CLAIM adherence was 48% (20/42). The median CLAIM score of manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals was higher than preprints, 57% (24/42) vs 40% (16/42), P < .0001. Chest radiology was the body region with the least complete reporting (P = .0352), with manuscripts on COVID-19 less complete than others (43% vs 54%, P = .0002). For studies published in peer-reviewed journals with an impact factor, the CLAIM score correlated with impact factor, rho = 0.43, P = .0040. Completeness of reporting based on CLAIM score had a positive correlation with a study's AAS, rho = 0.68, P < .0001. Conclusions: Overall reporting adherence to CLAIM is low in imaging diagnostic accuracy AI studies with the highest AAS, with preprints reporting fewer study details than peer-reviewed manuscripts. Improved CLAIM adherence could promote adoption of AI into clinical practice and facilitate investigators building upon prior works.

The quality of reporting in cardiac MRI artificial intelligence segmentation studies - a systematic review

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): This work was supported by an NIHR AI Award, AI_AWARD01706. This research was also funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust [Grant number 205188/Z/16/Z ]. Background There has been a rapid increase in the number of Artificial Intelligence (AI) studies of cardiac MRI (CMR) segmentation. AI has huge potential to improve image analysis assessments. However, advancement and clinical translation in this field depend on researchers presenting their work in a transparent and reproducible manner. Purpose This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in AI studies involving CMR segmentation. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for AI CMR segmentation studies on 18/11/2021. The flow of study inclusion is shown in Figure 1. Any AI method to segment any cardiac structure on CMR was eligible for inclusion. Each study was assessed for compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Results 70 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Studies were published between 2015 to 2021, with the majority (71%) published in 2020 and 2021. Most studies were performed in Europe (33%), China (27%) and the USA (26%). Short-axis sections were segmented in 70% of studies and most commonly included both ventricles (51%) or the left ventricle alone (30%). 20 different architecture implementations were represented. Figure 2 summarises the most relevant CLAIM domains to AI segmentation. The training sample eligibility criteria, demographics and clinical characteristics were not reported in 47% and 81% of studies, respectively. Ground truth annotations, source of the annotations and annotation tool were absent in 31%, 36% and 51% of studies respectively. Preprocessing steps and software libraries and packages used in training were not included in 27% and 24%. Details on the training approach including the number of models trained and method of selecting the final model were missing in 20% and 17% of the studies. Methods of validation or testing on external data, inter- and intra- rater variability and failure analysis were unreported in 57%, 63% and 74%, respectively. Conclusion This systematic review highlights important gaps in the AI literature of CMR studies. We identified key items missing in the dataset description, model development, validation and testing that limit the transparency, reproducibility and hence validity of published AI studies. This review may support closer adherence to established frameworks for reporting standards.

An updated systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma: utilizing CLAIM to adapt the increasing trend of deep learning application in radiomics

ObjectiveTo update the systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data were searched to identify articles on osteosarcoma radiomics until May 15, 2022. The studies were assessed by Radiomics Quality Score (RQS), Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM), and modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The evidence supporting radiomics application for osteosarcoma was rated according to meta-analysis results.ResultsTwenty-nine articles were included. The average of the ideal percentage of RQS, the TRIPOD adherence rate and the CLAIM adherence rate were 29.2%, 59.2%, and 63.7%, respectively. RQS identified a radiomics-specific issue of phantom study. TRIPOD addressed deficiency in blindness of assessment. CLAIM and TRIPOD both pointed out shortness in missing data handling and sample size or power calculation. CLAIM identified extra disadvantages in data de-identification and failure analysis. External validation and open science were emphasized by all the above three tools. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were mainly related to the index test. The meta-analysis of radiomics predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response by MRI presented a diagnostic odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 28.83 (10.27–80.95) on testing datasets and was rated as weak evidence.ConclusionsThe quality of osteosarcoma radiomics studies is insufficient. More investigation is needed before using radiomics to optimize osteosarcoma treatment. CLAIM is recommended to guide the design and reporting of radiomics research.

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Outcomes by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

Background and Objectives: Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) for outcome prediction has grown substantially in recent years. However, the prognostic role of AI using advanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) remains unclear. This systematic review assesses the existing literature on AI in CMR to predict outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. Materials and Methods: Medline and Embase were searched for studies published up to November 2021. Any study assessing outcome prediction using AI in CMR in patients with cardiovascular disease was eligible for inclusion. All studies were assessed for compliance with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM). Results: A total of 5 studies were included, with a total of 3679 patients, with 225 deaths and 265 major adverse cardiovascular events. Three methods demonstrated high prognostic accuracy: (1) three-dimensional motion assessment model in pulmonary hypertension (hazard ratio (HR) 2.74, 95%CI 1.73–4.34, p < 0.001), (2) automated perfusion quantification in patients with coronary artery disease (HR 2.14, 95%CI 1.58–2.90, p < 0.001), and (3) automated volumetric, functional, and area assessment in patients with myocardial infarction (HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.92–0.96, p < 0.001). Conclusion: There is emerging evidence of the prognostic role of AI in predicting outcomes for three-dimensional motion assessment in pulmonary hypertension, ischaemia assessment by automated perfusion quantification, and automated functional assessment in myocardial infarction.

Deep learning for prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutation in gliomas: a critical approach, systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test performance using a Bayesian approach.

BackgroundConventionally, identifying isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation in gliomas is based on histopathological analysis of tissue specimens acquired via stereotactic biopsy or definitive resection. Accurate pre-treatment prediction of IDH mutation status using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can guide clinical decision-making. We aim to evaluate the diagnostic performance of deep learning (DL) to determine IDH mutation status in gliomas.MethodsA systematic search of Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, and Scopus was conducted to identify relevant publications until August 1, 2021. Articles were included if all the following criteria were met: (I) patients with histopathologically confirmed World Health Organization (WHO) grade II, III, or IV gliomas; (II) histopathological examination with the IDH mutation; (III) DL was used to predict the IDH mutation status; (IV) sufficient data for reconstruction of confusion matrices in terms of the diagnostic performance of the DL algorithms; and (V) original research articles. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) was used to assess the studies' quality. Bayes theorem was utilized to calculate the posttest probability.ResultsFour studies with a total of 1,295 patients were included. In the training set, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were 93.9%, 90.9% and 0.958, respectively. In the validation set, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the SROC curve were 90.8%, 85.5% and 0.939, respectively. With a known pretest probability of 80.2%, the Bayes theorem yielded a posttest probability of 97.6% and 96.0% for a positive test and 27.0% and 30.6% for a negative test for training sets and validation sets, respectively.DiscussionThis is the first meta-analysis that summarizes the diagnostic performance of DL in predicting IDH mutation status in gliomas via the Bayes theorem. DL algorithms demonstrate excellent diagnostic performance in predicting IDH mutation in gliomas. Radiomic features associated with IDH mutation, and its underlying pathophysiology extracted from advanced MRI may improve prediction probability. However, more studies are required to optimize and increase its reliability. Limitations include obtaining some data via email and lack of training and test sets statistics.

Radiographers’ knowledge, attitudes and expectations of artificial intelligence in medical imaging

IntroductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly utilised in medical imaging systems and processes, and radiographers must embrace this advancement. This study aimed to investigate perceptions, knowledge, and expectations towards integrating AI into medical imaging amongst a sample of radiographers and determine the current state of AI education within the community. MethodsA cross-sectional online quantitative study targeting radiographers based in Europe was conducted over ten weeks. Captured data included demographical information, participants’ perceptions and understanding of AI, expectations of AI and AI-related educational backgrounds. Both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used to analyse the obtained data. ResultsA total of 96 valid responses were collected. Of these, 64% correctly identified the true definition of AI from a range of options, but fewer (37%) fully understood the difference between AI, machine learning and deep learning. The majority of participants (83%) agreed they were excited about the advancement of AI, though a level of apprehensiveness remained amongst 29%. A severe lack of education on AI was noted, with only 8% of participants having received AI teachings in their pre-registration qualification. ConclusionOverall positive attitudes towards AI implementation were observed. The slight apprehension may stem from the lack of technical understanding of AI technologies and AI training within the community. Greater educational programs focusing on AI principles are required to help increase European radiography workforce engagement and involvement in AI technologies. Implications for practiceThis study offers insight into the current perspectives of European based radiographers on AI in radiography to help facilitate the embracement of AI technology and convey the need for AI-focused education within the profession.

Quality of Multicenter Studies Using MRI Radiomics for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background: Reproducibility and generalization are major challenges for clinically significant prostate cancer modeling using MRI radiomics. Multicenter data seem indispensable to deal with these challenges, but the quality of such studies is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically review the quality of multicenter studies on MRI radiomics for diagnosing clinically significant PCa. Methods: This systematic review followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Multicenter studies investigating the value of MRI radiomics for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer were included. Quality was assessed using the checklist for artificial intelligence in medical imaging (CLAIM) and the radiomics quality score (RQS). CLAIM consisted of 42 equally important items referencing different elements of good practice AI in medical imaging. RQS consisted of 36 points awarded over 16 items related to good practice radiomics. Final CLAIM and RQS scores were percentage-based, allowing for a total quality score consisting of the average of CLAIM and RQS. Results: Four studies were included. The average total CLAIM score was 74.6% and the average RQS was 52.8%. The corresponding average total quality score (CLAIM + RQS) was 63.7%. Conclusions: A very small number of multicenter radiomics PCa classification studies have been performed with the existing studies being of bad or average quality. Good multicenter studies might increase by encouraging preferably prospective data sharing and paying extra care to documentation in regards to reproducibility and clinical utility.

Periodontal bone loss detection based on hybrid deep learning and machine learning models with a user-friendly application

As artificial intelligence in medical imaging is used to diagnose many diseases, it can also be employed to diagnose whether a person has periodontal bone loss or not. Accurate and early diagnosis performs a vital task in the treatment of the patient’s dental disorder. Therefore, such medical images are known to be an important clinical adjunct. In this manuscript, whether the patient has periodontal bone loss or non-periodontal bone loss is diagnosed employing hybrid artificial intelligence-based systems. Herein, after tagging a total of 1432 images by an expert, we extract 1000 deep image features for each image using AlexNet and SqueezeNet deep learning architectures. On the other hand, we classify these images directly without extracting the image features using the EfficientNetB5 deep learning architecture. First, we categorize AlexNet-based deep image features using the Coarse Tree, Weighted K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Gaussian Naïve Bayes, RUSBoosted Trees Ensemble, and Linear Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers. Afterward, we classify SqueezeNet-based deep image features using Medium Tree, Gaussian Naïve Bayes, Boosted Trees Ensemble, Coarse KNN, and Medium Gaussian SVM classifiers. With the help of the ten classifiers employed in this study, we also design a user-friendly Graphical User Interface (GUI) application. Thanks to this application, we aim to reduce the workload of experts, save time and help to diagnose dental disorders early. The results show that the best classifiers for AlexNet-based, SqueezeNet-based, and Direct-Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) are Linear SVM, Medium Gaussian SVM, and EfficientNetB5, respectively. Among these classifiers, the best classifier is Linear SVM, and its accuracy, error, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F1 score values are 81.49%, 18.51%, 84.57%, 79.14%, 75.68%, and 79.88%, respectively.

An evaluation of information online on artificial intelligence in medical imaging

BackgroundOpinions seem somewhat divided when considering the effect of artificial intelligence (AI) on medical imaging. The aim of this study was to characterise viewpoints presented online relating to the impact of AI on the field of radiology and to assess who is engaging in this discourse.MethodsTwo search methods were used to identify online information relating to AI and radiology. Firstly, 34 terms were searched using Google and the first two pages of results for each term were evaluated. Secondly, a Rich Search Site (RSS) feed evaluated incidental information over 3 weeks. Webpages were evaluated and categorized as having a positive, negative, balanced, or neutral viewpoint based on study criteria.ResultsOf the 680 webpages identified using the Google search engine, 248 were deemed relevant and accessible. 43.2% had a positive viewpoint, 38.3% a balanced viewpoint, 15.3% a neutral viewpoint, and 3.2% a negative viewpoint. Peer-reviewed journals represented the most common webpage source (48%), followed by media (29%), commercial sources (12%), and educational sources (8%). Commercial webpages had the highest proportion of positive viewpoints (66%). Radiologists were identified as the most common author group (38.9%). The RSS feed identified 177 posts of which were relevant and accessible. 86% of posts were of media origin expressing positive viewpoints (64%).ConclusionThe overall opinion of the impact of AI on radiology presented online is a positive one. Consistency across a range of sources and author groups exists. Radiologists were significant contributors to this online discussion and the results may impact future recruitment.

Australian perspectives on artificial intelligence in medical imaging.

IntroductionWhile artificial intelligence (AI) and recent developments in deep learning (DL) have sparked interest in medical imaging, there has been little commentary on the impact of AI on imaging technologists. The aim of this survey was to understand the attitudes, applications and concerns among nuclear medicine and radiography professionals in Australia with regard to the rapidly emerging applications of AI.MethodsAn anonymous online survey with invitation to participate was circulated to nuclear medicine and radiography members of the Rural Alliance in Nuclear Scintigraphy and the Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy. The survey invitations were sent to members via email and as a push via social media with the survey open for 10 weeks. All information collected was anonymised and there is no disclosure of personal information as it was de‐identified from commencement.ResultsAmong the 102 respondents, there was a high level of acceptance of lower order tasks (e.g. patient registration, triaging and dispensing) and less acceptance of high order task automation (e.g. surgery and interpretation). There was a low priority perception for the role of AI in higher order tasks (e.g. diagnosis, interpretation and decision making) and high priority for those applications that automate complex tasks (e.g. quantitation, segmentation, reconstruction) or improve image quality (e.g. dose / noise reduction and pseudo CT for attenuation correction). Medico‐legal, ethical, diversity and privacy issues posed moderate or high concern while there appeared to be no concern regarding AI being clinically useful and improving efficiency. Mild concerns included redundancy, training bias, transparency and validity.ConclusionAustralian nuclear medicine technologists and radiographers recognise important applications of AI for assisting with repetitive tasks, performing less complex tasks and enhancing the quality of outputs in medical imaging. There are concerns relating to ethical aspects of algorithm development and implementation.

Comprehensive Study for Breast Cancer Using Deep Learning and Traditional Machine Learning

Breast cancer is one of the most dangerous diseases and the second largest cause of women cancer death. Techniques and methods have been adopted for early indications of the disease signs as it’s the only effective way of managing breast cancer in women. This review explores the techniques used for breast cancer in Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) using image analysis, deep learning and traditional machine learning. It primarily gives an introduction to the various strategies of machine learning, followed by an explanation of the various deep learning techniques and particular architectures for breast cancer detection and their classification. After the review, the researcher recommended the need for the inclusion of deep learning in machine learning because it performs multi-functions in enabling medical diagnosis. Also, it is important to involve the integration of more than learning methods in medical learning to improve the process of medical diagnostic imaging and their benefits and limitations, recent advancements and development are discussed by reviewing the existing secondary sources. This study reviews papers published from 2015 (early publications on breast cancer) to 2021. This paper is a review of the latest works and techniques have done in the field with the future trends and problems in breast cancer categorization and diagnosis. REFERENCE: AHMED, L., IQBAL, M. M., ALDABBAS, H., KHALID, S., SALEEM, Y. &amp; SAEED, S. 2020. Images data practices for semantic segmentation of breast cancer using deep neural network. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1-17. AKBAR, S., AKRAM, M. U., SHARIF, M., TARIQ, A. &amp; KHAN, S. A. 2018. Decision support system for detection of hypertensive retinopathy using arteriovenous ratio. Artificial intelligence in medicine, 90, 15-24. AL MOHAMMAD, B., BRENNAN, P. C. &amp; MELLO-THOMS, C. 2017. A review of lung cancer screening and the role of computer-aided detection. Clinical radiology, 72, 433-442. AMIT, G., HASHOUL, S., KISILEV, P., OPHIR, B., WALACH, E. &amp; ZLOTNICK, A. Automatic dual-view mass detection in full-field digital mammograms. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2015. Springer, 44-52. ARAFA, A. A. A., EL-SOKARY, N., ASAD, A. &amp; HEFNY, H. 2019. Computer-aided detection system for breast cancer based on GMM and SVM. Arab Journal of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, 52, 142-150. ASHOUR, A. S., DEY, N. &amp; MOHAMED, W. S. 2016. Abdominal imaging in clinical applications: Computer aided diagnosis approaches. Medical imaging in clinical applications. Springer. BAFFA, M. D. F. O. &amp; LATTARI, L. G. Convolutional neural networks for static and dynamic breast infrared imaging classification. 2018 31st SIBGRAPI Conference on Graphics, Patterns and Images (SIBGRAPI), 2018. IEEE, 174-181. BENHASSINE, N. E., BOUKAACHE, A. &amp; BOUDJEHEM, D. 2020a. Classification of mammogram images using the energy probability in frequency domain and most discriminative power coefficients. International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, 30, 45-56. BENHASSINE, N. E., BOUKAACHE, A. &amp; BOUDJEHEM, D. 2020b. A new CAD System for Breast Cancer Classification using Discrimination Power Analysis of Wavelet’s Coefficients and Support Vector Machine. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology, 20, 2050036. BERA, K., SCHALPER, K. A., RIMM, D. L., VELCHETI, V. &amp; MADABHUSHI, A. 2019. Artificial intelligence in digital pathology—new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology. Nature reviews Clinical oncology, 16, 703-715. BHARAT, A., POOJA, N. &amp; REDDY, R. A. Using machine learning algorithms for breast cancer risk prediction and diagnosis. 2018 3rd International Conference on Circuits, Control, Communication and Computing (I4C), 2018. IEEE, 1-4. BYRA, M., GALPERIN, M., OJEDA‐FOURNIER, H., OLSON, L., O'BOYLE, M., COMSTOCK, C. &amp; ANDRE, M. 2019. Breast mass classification in sonography with transfer learning using a deep convolutional neural network and color conversion. Medical physics, 46, 746-755. CAI, L., WANG, X., WANG, Y., GUO, Y., YU, J. &amp; WANG, Y. 2015. Robust phase-based texture descriptor for classification of breast ultrasound images. Biomedical engineering online, 14, 1-21. CHAURASIA, V., PAL, S. &amp; TIWARI, B. 2018. Prediction of benign and malignant breast cancer using data mining techniques. Journal of Algorithms &amp; Computational Technology, 12, 119-126. CHEN, D., QIAN, G., SHI, C. &amp; PAN, Q. Breast cancer malignancy prediction using incremental combination of multiple recurrent neural networks. International Conference on Neural Information Processing, 2017. Springer, 43-52. DARGAN, S., KUMAR, M., AYYAGARI, M. R. &amp; KUMAR, G. 2019. A survey of deep learning and its applications: A new paradigm to machine learning. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 1-22. DE FILIPPIS, R., CARBONE, E. A., GAETANO, R., BRUNI, A., PUGLIESE, V., SEGURA-GARCIA, C. &amp; DE FAZIO, P. 2019. Machine learning techniques in a structural and functional MRI diagnostic approach in schizophrenia: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 15, 1605. DE LIMA, S. M., DA SILVA-FILHO, A. G. &amp; DOS SANTOS, W. P. 2016. Detection and classification of masses in mammographic images in a multi-kernel approach. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 134, 11-29. DWIVEDI, Y. K., HUGHES, L., ISMAGILOVA, E., AARTS, G., COOMBS, C., CRICK, T., DUAN, Y., DWIVEDI, R., EDWARDS, J. &amp; EIRUG, A. 2019. Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 101994. ELGEDAWY, M. N. 2017. Prediction of breast cancer using random forest, support vector machines and naïve Bayes. International Journal of Engineering and Computer Science, 6, 19884-19889. FENG, H., CAO, J., WANG, H., XIE, Y., YANG, D., FENG, J. &amp; CHEN, B. 2020. A knowledge-driven feature learning and integration method for breast cancer diagnosis on multi-sequence MRI. Magnetic resonance imaging, 69, 40-48. GAO, Y., GERAS, K. J., LEWIN, A. A. &amp; MOY, L. 2019. New frontiers: an update on computer-aided diagnosis for breast imaging in the age of artificial intelligence. American Journal of Roentgenology, 212, 300-307. HAZRA, A., MANDAL, S. K. &amp; GUPTA, A. 2016. Study and analysis of breast cancer cell detection using Naïve Bayes, SVM and Ensemble Algorithms. International Journal of Computer Applications, 145, 39-45. HENRIKSEN, E. L., CARLSEN, J. F., VEJBORG, I. M., NIELSEN, M. B. &amp; LAURIDSEN, C. A. 2019. The efficacy of using computer-aided detection (CAD) for detection of breast cancer in mammography screening: a systematic review. Acta Radiologica, 60, 13-18. HOSSAM, A., HARB, H. M. &amp; ABD EL KADER, H. M. 2018. Automatic image segmentation method for breast cancer analysis using thermography. JES. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 46, 12-32. HOUSSEIN, E. H., EMAM, M. M., ALI, A. A. &amp; SUGANTHAN, P. N. 2020. Deep and machine learning techniques for medical imaging-based breast cancer: A comprehensive review. Expert Systems with Applications, 114161. KHAN, M. A., SHARIF, M., AKRAM, T., YASMIN, M. &amp; NAYAK, R. S. 2019. Stomach deformities recognition using rank-based deep features selection. Journal of medical systems, 43, 1-15. KIM, C.-M., PARK, R. C. &amp; HONG, E. J. 2020. Breast Mass Classification Using eLFA Algorithm Based on CRNN Deep Learning Model. IEEE Access, 8, 197312-197323. KONG, K., KENDALL, C., STONE, N. &amp; NOTINGHER, I. 2015. Raman spectroscopy for medical diagnostics—From in-vitro biofluid assays to in-vivo cancer detection. Advanced drug delivery reviews, 89, 121-134. KOROTCOV, A., TKACHENKO, V., RUSSO, D. P. &amp; EKINS, S. 2017. Comparison of deep learning with multiple machine learning methods and metrics using diverse drug discovery data sets. Molecular pharmaceutics, 14, 4462-4475. LANGLOTZ, C. P., ALLEN, B., ERICKSON, B. J., KALPATHY-CRAMER, J., BIGELOW, K., COOK, T. S., FLANDERS, A. E., LUNGREN, M. P., MENDELSON, D. S. &amp; RUDIE, J. D. 2019. A roadmap for foundational research on artificial intelligence in medical imaging: from the 2018 NIH/RSNA/ACR/The Academy Workshop. Radiology, 291, 781-791. MALATHI, M., SINTHIA, P., FARZANA, F. &amp; MARY, G. A. A. 2021. Breast cancer detection using active contour and classification by deep belief network. Materials Today: Proceedings. MORRA, L., SACCHETTO, D., DURANDO, M., AGLIOZZO, S., CARBONARO, L. A., DELSANTO, S., PESCE, B., PERSANO, D., MARISCOTTI, G. &amp; MARRA, V. 2015. Breast cancer: computer-aided detection with digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology, 277, 56-63. MURTAZA, G., SHUIB, L., WAHAB, A. W. A., MUJTABA, G., NWEKE, H. F., AL-GARADI, M. A., ZULFIQAR, F., RAZA, G. &amp; AZMI, N. A. 2019. Deep learning-based breast cancer classification through medical imaging modalities: state of the art and research challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review, 1-66. OBAID, O. I., MOHAMMED, M. A., GHANI, M., MOSTAFA, A. &amp; TAHA, F. 2018. Evaluating the performance of machine learning techniques in the classification of Wisconsin Breast Cancer. International Journal of Engineering &amp; Technology, 7, 160-166. QI, X., ZHANG, L., CHEN, Y., PI, Y., CHEN, Y., LV, Q. &amp; YI, Z. 2019. Automated diagnosis of breast ultrasonography images using deep neural networks. Medical image analysis, 52, 185-198. RAJINIKANTH, V., SATAPATHY, S. C., FERNANDES, S. L. &amp; NACHIAPPAN, S. 2017. Entropy based segmentation of tumor from brain MR images–a study with teaching learning based optimization. Pattern Recognition Letters, 94, 87-95. ROSLIDAR, R., SADDAMI, K., ARNIA, F., SYUKRI, M. &amp; MUNADI, K. A study of fine-tuning CNN models based on thermal imaging for breast cancer classification. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Computational Intelligence (CyberneticsCom), 2019. IEEE, 77-81. SENKAMALAVALLI, R. &amp; BHUVANESWARI, T. 2017. Improved classification of breast cancer data using hybrid techniques. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 5, 237467. SHARMA, S., AGGARWAL, A. &amp; CHOUDHURY, T. Breast cancer detection using machine learning algorithms. 2018 International Conference on Computational Techniques, Electronics and Mechanical Systems (CTEMS), 2018. IEEE, 114-118. SILVA, J., BORRÉ, J. R., CASTILLO, A. P. P., CASTRO, L. &amp; VARELA, N. 2019. Integration of data mining classification techniques and ensemble learning for predicting the export potential of a company. Procedia Computer Science, 151, 1194-1200. SMITH, R. A., ANDREWS, K. S., BROOKS, D., FEDEWA, S. A., MANASSARAM‐BAPTISTE, D., SASLOW, D., BRAWLEY, O. W. &amp; WENDER, R. C. 2018. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 68, 297-316. SOCIETY, A. C. 2019. Breast cancer facts &amp; figures 2019–2020. Am. Cancer Soc, 1-44. STENROOS, O. 2017. Object detection from images using convolutional neural networks. SYEDA-MAHMOOD, T. 2018. Role of big data and machine learning in diagnostic decision support in radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 15, 569-576. TAHMOORESI, M., AFSHAR, A., RAD, B. B., NOWSHATH, K. &amp; BAMIAH, M. 2018. Early detection of breast cancer using machine learning techniques. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 10, 21-27. TESFAYE, S., SELVARAJAH, D., GANDHI, R., GREIG, M., SHILLO, P., FANG, F. &amp; WILKINSON, I. D. 2016. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy may not be as its name suggests: evidence from magnetic resonance imaging. Pain, 157, S72-S80. WANG, L. 2017. Early diagnosis of breast cancer. Sensors, 17, 1572. YAP, M. H., PONS, G., MARTI, J., GANAU, S., SENTIS, M., ZWIGGELAAR, R., DAVISON, A. K. &amp; MARTI, R. 2017. Automated breast ultrasound lesions detection using convolutional neural networks. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics, 22, 1218-1226. YARI, Y., NGUYEN, T. V. &amp; NGUYEN, H. T. 2020. Deep learning applied for histological diagnosis of breast cancer. IEEE Access, 8, 162432-162448. YASSIN, N. I., OMRAN, S., EL HOUBY, E. M. &amp; ALLAM, H. 2018. Machine learning techniques for breast cancer computer aided diagnosis using different image modalities: A systematic review. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 156, 25-45. ZULUAGA-GOMEZ, J., AL MASRY, Z., BENAGGOUNE, K., MERAGHNI, S. &amp; ZERHOUNI, N. 2020. A CNN-based methodology for breast cancer diagnosis using thermal images. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging &amp; Visualization, 1-15. ISMAIL, N. S. &amp; SOVUTHY, C. Breast cancer detection based on deep learning technique. 2019 International UNIMAS STEM 12th Engineering Conference (EnCon), 2019. IEEE, 89-92. LI, M. Research on the Detection Method of Breast Cancer Deep Convolutional Neural Network Based on Computer Aid. 2021 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers (IPEC), 2021. IEEE, 536-540. AMKRANE, Y., EL ADOUI, M. &amp; BENJELLOUN, M. Towards Breast Cancer Response Prediction using Artificial Intelligence and Radiomics. 2020 5th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Artificial Intelligence: Technologies and Applications (CloudTech), 2020. IEEE, 1-5. CHEN, C., WANG, Y., NIU, J., LIU, X., LI, Q. &amp; GONG, X. J. I. T. O. M. I. 2021. Domain Knowledge Powered Deep Learning for Breast Cancer Diagnosis Based on Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Videos. CHOUGRAD, H., ZOUAKI, H., ALHEYANE, O. J. C. M. &amp; BIOMEDICINE, P. I. 2018. Deep convolutional neural networks for breast cancer screening. 157, 19-30. DAS, A., MOHANTY, M. N., MALLICK, P. K., TIWARI, P., MUHAMMAD, K., ZHU, H. J. B. S. P. &amp; CONTROL 2021. Breast cancer detection using an ensemble deep learning method. 70, 103009. HIRRA, I., AHMAD, M., HUSSAIN, A., ASHRAF, M. U., SAEED, I. A., QADRI, S. F., ALGHAMDI, A. M. &amp; ALFAKEEH, A. S. J. I. A. 2021. Breast Cancer Classification From Histopathological Images Using Patch-Based Deep Learning Modeling. 9, 24273-24287. HU, Q., WHITNEY, H. M. &amp; GIGER, M. L. J. S. R. 2020. A deep learning methodology for improved breast cancer diagnosis using multiparametric MRI. 10, 1-11. KUMAR, A., SINGH, S. K., SAXENA, S., LAKSHMANAN, K., SANGAIAH, A. K., CHAUHAN, H., SHRIVASTAVA, S. &amp; SINGH, R. K. J. I. S. 2020. Deep feature learning for histopathological image classification of canine mammary tumors and human breast cancer. 508, 405-421. MENDEL, K., LI, H., SHETH, D. &amp; GIGER, M. J. A. R. 2019. Transfer learning from convolutional neural networks for computer-aided diagnosis: a comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. 26, 735-743. SURENDHAR, S. P. A. &amp; VASUKI, R. J. M. T. P. 2021. Breast cancers detection using deep learning algorithm. XIE, J., LIU, R., LUTTRELL IV, J. &amp; ZHANG, C. J. F. I. G. 2019. Deep learning based analysis of histopathological images of breast cancer. 10, 80. YU, K., TAN, L., LIN, L., CHENG, X., YI, Z. &amp; SATO, T. J. I. W. C. 2021. Deep-learning-empowered breast cancer auxiliary diagnosis for 5GB remote E-health. 28, 54-61.

Clinical Explainability Failure (CEF) & Explainability Failure Ratio (EFR) - Changing the Way We Validate Classification Algorithms.

Adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms into the clinical realm will depend on their inherent trustworthiness, which is built not only by robust validation studies but is also deeply linked to the explainability and interpretability of the algorithms. Most validation studies for medical imaging AI report the performance of algorithms on study-level labels and lay little emphasis on measuring the accuracy of explanations generated by these algorithms in the form of heat maps or bounding boxes, especially in true positive cases. We propose a new metric - Explainability Failure Ratio (EFR) - derived from Clinical Explainability Failure (CEF) to address this gap in AI evaluation. We define an Explainability Failure as a case where the classification generated by an AI algorithm matches with study-level ground truth but the explanation output generated by the algorithm is inadequate to explain the algorithm's output. We measured EFR for two algorithms that automatically detect consolidation on chest X-rays to determine the applicability of the metric and observed a lower EFR for the model that had lower sensitivity for identifying consolidation on chest X-rays, implying that the trustworthiness of a model should be determined not only by routine statistical metrics but also by novel 'clinically-oriented' models.

Quality use of artificial intelligence in medical imaging: What do radiologists need to know?

The application of artificial intelligence, and in particular machine learning, to the practice of radiology, is already impacting the quality of imaging care. It will increasingly do so in the future. Radiologists need to be aware of factors that govern the quality of these tools at the development, regulatory and clinical implementation stages in order to make judicious decisions about their use in daily practice.