Deep Learning for the Digital Pathologic Diagnosis of Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Evaluating the Impact of a Web-based Diagnostic Assistant

While artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms continue to rival human performance on a variety of clinical tasks, the question of how best to incorporate these algorithms into clinical workflows remains relatively unexplored. We investigated how AI can affect pathologist performance on the task of d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2019-11
Main Authors: Bora Uyumazturk, Kiani, Amirhossein, Rajpurkar, Pranav, Wang, Alex, Ball, Robyn L, Gao, Rebecca, Yu, Yifan, Jones, Erik, Langlotz, Curtis P, Brock, Martin, Berry, Gerald J, Ozawa, Michael G, Hazard, Florette K, Brown, Ryanne A, Chen, Simon B, Wood, Mona, Allard, Libby S, Ylagan, Lourdes, Ng, Andrew Y, Shen, Jeanne
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Algorithms
Artificial intelligence
Bias
Deep learning
Diagnosis
Diagnostic systems
Human performance
Liver cancer
Machine learning
Model accuracy
Performance enhancement
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:While artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms continue to rival human performance on a variety of clinical tasks, the question of how best to incorporate these algorithms into clinical workflows remains relatively unexplored. We investigated how AI can affect pathologist performance on the task of differentiating between two subtypes of primary liver cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC). We developed an AI diagnostic assistant using a deep learning model and evaluated its effect on the diagnostic performance of eleven pathologists with varying levels of expertise. Our deep learning model achieved an accuracy of 0.885 on an internal validation set of 26 slides and an accuracy of 0.842 on an independent test set of 80 slides. Despite having high accuracy on a hold out test set, the diagnostic assistant did not significantly improve performance across pathologists (p-value: 0.184, OR: 1.287 (95% CI 0.886, 1.871)). Model correctness was observed to significantly bias the pathologist decisions. When the model was correct, assistance significantly improved accuracy across all pathologist experience levels and for all case difficulty levels (p-value: < 0.001, OR: 4.289 (95% CI 2.360, 7.794)). When the model was incorrect, assistance significantly decreased accuracy across all 11 pathologists and for all case difficulty levels (p-value < 0.001, OR: 0.253 (95% CI 0.126, 0.507)). Our results highlight the challenges of translating AI models to the clinical setting, especially for difficult subspecialty tasks such as tumor classification. In particular, they suggest that incorrect model predictions could strongly bias an expert's diagnosis, an important factor to consider when designing medical AI-assistance systems.
ISSN:2331-8422