Search

Saif Aldeen AlRyalat,1 Praveer Singh,2 Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer,2 Malik Y Kahook2 1Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan; 2Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Eye Center, Aurora, CO, USACorrespondence: Malik Y Kahook, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Eye Center, Aurora, CO, USA, Email Malik.Kahook@cuanschutz.eduAbstract: There has been a recent surge in the number of publications centered on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose various systemic diseases. The Food and Drug Administration has approved several algorithms for use in clinical practice. In ophthalmology, most advances in AI relate to diabetic retinopathy, which is a disease process with agreed upon diagnostic and classification criteria. However, this is not the case for glaucoma, which is a relatively complex disease without agreed-upon diagnostic criteria. Moreover, currently available public datasets that focus on glaucoma have inconstant label quality, further complicating attempts at training AI algorithms efficiently. In this perspective paper, we discuss specific details related to developing AI models for glaucoma and suggest potential steps to overcome current limitations.Keywords: artificial intelligence, glaucoma, deep learning, optic disc, segmentation

Objective: Inter-expert variability in imagebased clinical diagnosis has been demonstrated in many diseases including retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), which is a disease affecting low birth weight infants and is a major cause of childhood blindness. In order to better understand the underlying causes of variability among experts, we propose a method to quantify the variability of expert decisions and analyze the relationship between expert diagnoses and features computed from the images. Identification of these features is relevant for development of computer-based decision support systems and educational systems in ROP, and these methods may be applicable to other diseases where inter-expert variability is observed. Methods: The experiments were carried out on a dataset of 34 retinal images, each with diagnoses provided independently by 22 experts. Analysis was performed using concepts of Mutual Information (Ml) and Kernel Density Estimation. A large set of structural features (a total of 66) were extracted from retinal images. Feature selection was utilized to identify the most important features that correlated to actual clinical decisions by the 22 study experts. The best three features for each observer were selected by an exhaustive search on all possible feature subsets and considering joint Ml as a relevance criterion. We also compared our results with the results of Cohen's Kappa [36] as an inter-rater reliability measure. Results: The results demonstrate that a group of observers (17 among 22) decide consistently with each other. Mean and second central moment of arteriolar tortuosity is among the reasons of disagreement between this group and the rest of the observers, meaning that the group of experts consider amount of tortuosity as well as the variation of tortuosity in the image. Conclusion: Given a set of image-based features, the proposed analysis method can identify critical image-based features that lead to expert agreement and disagreement in diagnosis of ROP. Although tree-based features and various statistics such as central moment are not popular in the literature, our results suggest that they are important for diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the role of pretreatment tumor radiomic features in predicting pathologic response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) listed for liver transplant. Machine learning-based radiomic analysis of pre-ablation MRI may aid in the prediction of tumor pathologic response in patients with HCC undergoing liver transplantation. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: To demonstrate and test the capabilities of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Connect and AI-LAB software platform by implementing multi-institutional artificial intelligence (AI) training and validation for breast density classification., Methods: In this proof-of-concept study, six U.S.-based hospitals installed Connect and AI-LAB. A breast density algorithm was trained and tested on retrospective mammograms. We recorded time to receive an IRB approval, to install software locally, and to complete the testing and training. We calculated the performance of the breast density algorithm at each participating hospital and compared it to the performance of a hold-out multi-institutional clinical trial testing dataset and a retrospective multi-institutional dataset. We calculated the performance of the locally fine-tuned models on the hold-out test datasets., Results: The median time to receive IRB approval was 66 days, and the median time to successfully install Connect and AI-LAB locally was 157 days. The median time to complete breast density algorithm testing and training was 216 days. The breast density algorithm performed worse at each hospital than on the hold-out test dataset, suggesting poor generalizability of the base model. The fine-tuned models had mixed performance locally and performed poorly on the test dataset., Discussion: In this study, we demonstrate the successful installation and implementation of Connect and AI-LAB software platforms at six facilities using a breast density algorithm. Our results suggest poor generalizability of an algorithm trained on a single dataset and algorithms fine-tuned at individual institutions, emphasizing the hypothetical importance of multi-institutional testing and training., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To evaluate whether providing clinicians with an artificial intelligence (AI)-based vascular severity score (VSS) improves consistency in the diagnosis of plus disease in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP)., Design: Multireader diagnostic accuracy imaging study., Participants: Eleven ROP experts, 9 of whom had been in practice for 10 years or more., Methods: RetCam (Natus Medical Incorporated) fundus images were obtained from premature infants during routine ROP screening as part of the Imaging and Informatics in ROP study between January 2012 and July 2020. From all available examinations, a subset of 150 eye examinations from 110 infants were selected for grading. An AI-based VSS was assigned to each set of images using the i-ROP DL system (Siloam Vision). The clinicians were asked to diagnose plus disease for each examination and to assign an estimated VSS (range, 1-9) at baseline, and then again 1 month later with AI-based VSS assistance. A reference standard diagnosis (RSD) was assigned to each eye examination from the Imaging and Informatics in ROP study based on 3 masked expert labels and the ophthalmoscopic diagnosis., Main Outcome Measures: Mean linearly weighted κ value for plus disease diagnosis compared with RSD. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR) for labels 1 through 9 compared with RSD for plus disease., Results: Expert agreement improved significantly, from substantial (κ value, 0.69 [0.59, 0.75]) to near perfect (κ value, 0.81 [0.71, 0.86]), when AI-based VSS was integrated. Additionally, a significant improvement in plus disease discrimination was achieved as measured by mean AUC (from 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-0.96] to 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]; difference, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.06]) and AUPR (from 0.86 [95% CI, 0.81-0.90] to 0.95 [95% CI, 0.91-0.97]; difference, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.03-0.14])., Conclusions: Providing ROP clinicians with an AI-based measurement of vascular severity in ROP was associated with both improved plus disease diagnosis and improved continuous severity labeling as compared with an RSD for plus disease. If implemented in practice, AI-based VSS could reduce interobserver variability and could standardize treatment for infants with ROP., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI), excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is a potential replacement for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). An extensive international multireader multicase observer study was conducted to assess the noninferiority of bpMRI to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis., Methods: An observer study was conducted with 400 mpMRI examinations from four European centers, excluding examinations with prior prostate treatment or csPCa (Gleason grade [GG] ≥2) findings. Readers assessed bpMRI and mpMRI sequentially, assigning lesion-specific Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (3-5) and a patient-level suspicion score (0-100). The noninferiority of patient-level bpMRI versus mpMRI csPCa diagnosis was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) alongside the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3 with a 5% margin. The secondary outcomes included insignificant prostate cancer (GG1) diagnosis, diagnostic evaluations at alternative risk thresholds, decision curve analyses (DCAs), and subgroup analyses considering reader expertise. Histopathology and ≥3 yr of follow-up were used for the reference standard., Key Findings and Limitations: Sixty-two readers (45 centers and 20 countries) participated. The prevalence of csPCa was 33% (133/400); bpMRI and mpMRI showed similar AUROC values of 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.819-0.887) and 0.859 (95% CI, 0.826-0.893), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.2% to 0.1%, p < 0.001). At PI-RADS ≥3, bpMRI and mpMRI had sensitivities of 88.6% (95% CI, 84.8-92.3%) and 89.4% (95% CI, 85.8-93.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.9% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.0%, p < 0.001), and specificities of 58.6% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0-1.8%, p < 0.001). At alternative risk thresholds, mpMRI increased sensitivity at the expense of reduced specificity. DCA demonstrated the highest net benefit for an mpMRI pathway in cancer-averse scenarios, whereas a bpMRI pathway showed greater benefit for biopsy-averse scenarios. A subgroup analysis indicated limited additional benefit of DCE MRI for nonexperts. Limitations included that biopsies were conducted based on mpMRI imaging, and reading was performed in a sequential order., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: It has been found that bpMRI is noninferior to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis at AUROC, along with the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3, showing its value in individuals without prior csPCa findings and prostate treatment. Additional randomized prospective studies are required to investigate the generalizability of outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a retinal disorder characterized by central retinal (macular) damage. Approximately 10% to 20% of non-exudative AMD cases progress to the exudative form, which may result in rapid deterioration of central vision. Individuals with exudative AMD (eAMD) need prompt consultation with retinal specialists to minimize the risk and extent of vision loss. Traditional methods of diagnosing ophthalmic disease rely on clinical evaluation and multiple imaging techniques, which can be resource-consuming. Tests leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) hold the promise of automatically identifying and categorizing pathological features, enabling the timely diagnosis and treatment of eAMD., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) as a triaging tool for exudative age-related macular degeneration (eAMD)., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three clinical trials registries, and Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) for gray literature. We did not restrict searches by language or publication date. The date of the last search was April 2024., Selection Criteria: Included studies compared the test performance of algorithms with that of human readers to detect eAMD on retinal images collected from people with AMD who were evaluated at eye clinics in community or academic medical centers, and who were not receiving treatment for eAMD when the images were taken. We included algorithms that were either internally or externally validated or both., Data Collection and Analysis: Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool with revised signaling questions. For studies that reported more than one set of performance results, we extracted only one set of diagnostic accuracy data per study based on the last development stage or the optimal algorithm as indicated by the study authors. For two-class algorithms, we collected data from the 2x2 table whenever feasible. For multi-class algorithms, we first consolidated data from all classes other than eAMD before constructing the corresponding 2x2 tables. Assuming a common positivity threshold applied by the included studies, we chose random-effects, bivariate logistic models to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity as the primary performance metrics., Main Results: We identified 36 eligible studies that reported 40 sets of algorithm performance data, encompassing over 16,000 participants and 62,000 images. We included 28 studies (78%) that reported 31 algorithms with performance data in the meta-analysis. The remaining nine studies (25%) reported eight algorithms that lacked usable performance data; we reported them in the qualitative synthesis. Study characteristics and risk of bias Most studies were conducted in Asia, followed by Europe, the USA, and collaborative efforts spanning multiple countries. Most studies identified study participants from the hospital setting, while others used retinal images from public repositories; a few studies did not specify image sources. Based on four of the 36 studies reporting demographic information, the age of the study participants ranged from 62 to 82 years. The included algorithms used various retinal image types as model input, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) images (N = 15), fundus images (N = 6), and multi-modal imaging (N = 7). The predominant core method used was deep neural networks. All studies that reported externally validated algorithms were at high risk of bias mainly due to potential selection bias from either a two-gate design or the inappropriate exclusion of potentially eligible retinal images (or participants). Findings Only three of the 40 included algorithms were externally validated (7.5%, 3/40). The summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.00), respectively, when compared to human graders (3 studies; 27,872 images; low-certainty evidence). The prevalence of images with eAMD ranged from 0.3% to 49%. Twenty-eight algorithms were reportedly either internally validated (20%, 8/40) or tested on a development set (50%, 20/40); the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98), respectively, when compared to human graders (28 studies; 33,409 images; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify significant sources of heterogeneity among these 28 algorithms. Although algorithms using OCT images appeared more homogeneous and had the highest summary specificity (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98), they were not superior to algorithms using fundus images alone (0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) or multimodal imaging (0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; P for meta-regression = 0.239). The median prevalence of images with eAMD was 30% (interquartile range [IQR] 22% to 39%). We did not include eight studies that described nine algorithms (one study reported two sets of algorithm results) to distinguish eAMD from normal images, images of other AMD, or other non-AMD retinal lesions in the meta-analysis. Five of these algorithms were generally based on smaller datasets (range 21 to 218 participants per study) yet with a higher prevalence of eAMD images (range 33% to 66%). Relative to human graders, the reported sensitivity in these studies ranged from 0.95 and 0.97, while the specificity ranged from 0.94 to 0.99. Similarly, using small datasets (range 46 to 106), an additional four algorithms for detecting eAMD from other retinal lesions showed high sensitivity (range 0.96 to 1.00) and specificity (range 0.77 to 1.00)., Authors' Conclusions: Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that an algorithm-based test may correctly identify most individuals with eAMD without increasing unnecessary referrals (false positives) in either the primary or the specialty care settings. There were significant concerns for applying the review findings due to variations in the eAMD prevalence in the included studies. In addition, among the included algorithm-based tests, diagnostic accuracy estimates were at risk of bias due to study participants not reflecting real-world characteristics, inadequate model validation, and the likelihood of selective results reporting. Limited quality and quantity of externally validated algorithms highlighted the need for high-certainty evidence. This evidence will require a standardized definition for eAMD on different imaging modalities and external validation of the algorithm to assess generalizability., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

People diagnosed with cancer and their formal and informal caregivers are increasingly faced with a deluge of complex information, thanks to rapid advancements in the type and volume of diagnostic, prognostic, and treatment data. This commentary discusses the opportunities and challenges that the society faces as we integrate large volumes of data into regular cancer care., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

A number of challenges hinder artificial intelligence (AI) models from effective clinical translation. Foremost among these challenges is the lack of generalizability, which is defined as the ability of a model to perform well on datasets that have different characteristics from the training data. We recently investigated the development of an AI pipeline on digital images of the cervix, utilizing a multi-heterogeneous dataset of 9,462 women (17,013 images) and a multi-stage model selection and optimization approach, to generate a diagnostic classifier able to classify images of the cervix into "normal", "indeterminate" and "precancer/cancer" (denoted as "precancer+") categories. In this work, we investigate the performance of this multiclass classifier on external data not utilized in training and internal validation, to assess the generalizability of the classifier when moving to new settings. We assessed both the classification performance and repeatability of our classifier model across the two axes of heterogeneity present in our dataset: image capture device and geography, utilizing both out-of-the-box inference and retraining with external data. Our results demonstrate that device-level heterogeneity affects our model performance more than geography-level heterogeneity. Classification performance of our model is strong on images from a new geography without retraining, while incremental retraining with inclusion of images from a new device progressively improves classification performance on that device up to a point of saturation. Repeatability of our model is relatively unaffected by data heterogeneity and remains strong throughout. Our work supports the need for optimized retraining approaches that address data heterogeneity (e.g., when moving to a new device) to facilitate effective use of AI models in new settings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Clinical Relevance: Glaucoma is a complex eye condition with varied morphological and clinical presentations, making diagnosis and management challenging. The lack of a consensus definition for glaucoma or glaucomatous optic neuropathy further complicates the development of universal diagnostic tools. Developing robust artificial intelligence (AI) models for glaucoma screening is essential for early detection and treatment but faces significant obstacles. Effective deep learning algorithms require large, well-curated datasets from diverse patient populations and imaging protocols. However, creating centralized data repositories is hindered by concerns over data sharing, patient privacy, regulatory compliance, and intellectual property. Federated Learning (FL) offers a potential solution by enabling data to remain locally hosted while facilitating distributed model training across multiple sites., Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted on the application of Federated Learning in training AI models for glaucoma screening. Publications from 1950 to 2024 were searched using databases such as PubMed and IEEE Xplore with keywords including "glaucoma," "federated learning," "artificial intelligence," "deep learning," "machine learning," "distributed learning," "privacy-preserving," "data sharing," "medical imaging," and "ophthalmology." Articles were included if they discussed the use of FL in glaucoma-related AI tasks or addressed data sharing and privacy challenges in ophthalmic AI development., Results: FL enables collaborative model development without centralizing sensitive patient data, addressing privacy and regulatory concerns. Studies show that FL can improve model performance and generalizability by leveraging diverse datasets while maintaining data security. FL models have achieved comparable or superior accuracy to those trained on centralized data, demonstrating effectiveness in real-world clinical settings., Conclusions: Federated Learning presents a promising strategy to overcome current obstacles in developing AI models for glaucoma screening. By balancing the need for extensive, diverse training data with the imperative to protect patient privacy and comply with regulations, FL facilitates collaborative model training without compromising data security. This approach offers a pathway toward more accurate and generalizable AI solutions for glaucoma detection and management., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) shows potential to improve health care by leveraging data to build models that can inform clinical workflows. However, access to large quantities of diverse data is needed to develop robust generalizable models. Data sharing across institutions is not always feasible due to legal, security, and privacy concerns. Federated learning (FL) allows for multi-institutional training of AI models, obviating data sharing, albeit with different security and privacy concerns. Specifically, insights exchanged during FL can leak information about institutional data. In addition, FL can introduce issues when there is limited trust among the entities performing the compute. With the growing adoption of FL in health care, it is imperative to elucidate the potential risks. We thus summarize privacy-preserving FL literature in this work with special regard to health care. We draw attention to threats and review mitigation approaches. We anticipate this review to become a health-care researcher's guide to security and privacy in FL., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024 The Authors.)

The correct interpretation of breast density is important in the assessment of breast cancer risk. AI has been shown capable of accurately predicting breast density, however, due to the differences in imaging characteristics across mammography systems, models built using data from one system do not generalize well to other systems. Though federated learning (FL) has emerged as a way to improve the generalizability of AI without the need to share data, the best way to preserve features from all training data during FL is an active area of research. To explore FL methodology, the breast density classification FL challenge was hosted in partnership with the American College of Radiology, Harvard Medical Schools' Mass General Brigham, University of Colorado, NVIDIA, and the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. Challenge participants were able to submit docker containers capable of implementing FL on three simulated medical facilities, each containing a unique large mammography dataset. The breast density FL challenge ran from June 15 to September 5, 2022, attracting seven finalists from around the world. The winning FL submission reached a linear kappa score of 0.653 on the challenge test data and 0.413 on an external testing dataset, scoring comparably to a model trained on the same data in a central location., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can potentially aid the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer by alleviating the increasing workload, preventing overdiagnosis, and reducing the dependence on experienced radiologists. We aimed to investigate the performance of AI systems at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI in comparison with radiologists using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS 2.1) and the standard of care in multidisciplinary routine practice at scale., Methods: In this international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study, we trained and externally validated an AI system (developed within an international consortium) for detecting Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers using a retrospective cohort of 10 207 MRI examinations from 9129 patients. Of these examinations, 9207 cases from three centres (11 sites) based in the Netherlands were used for training and tuning, and 1000 cases from four centres (12 sites) based in the Netherlands and Norway were used for testing. In parallel, we facilitated a multireader, multicase observer study with 62 radiologists (45 centres in 20 countries; median 7 [IQR 5-10] years of experience in reading prostate MRI) using PI-RADS (2.1) on 400 paired MRI examinations from the testing cohort. Primary endpoints were the sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the AI system in comparison with that of all readers using PI-RADS (2.1) and in comparison with that of the historical radiology readings made during multidisciplinary routine practice (ie, the standard of care with the aid of patient history and peer consultation). Histopathology and at least 3 years (median 5 [IQR 4-6] years) of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. The statistical analysis plan was prespecified with a primary hypothesis of non-inferiority (considering a margin of 0·05) and a secondary hypothesis of superiority towards the AI system, if non-inferiority was confirmed. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05489341., Findings: Of the 10 207 examinations included from Jan 1, 2012, through Dec 31, 2021, 2440 cases had histologically confirmed Gleason grade group 2 or greater prostate cancer. In the subset of 400 testing cases in which the AI system was compared with the radiologists participating in the reader study, the AI system showed a statistically superior and non-inferior AUROC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·87-0·94; p<0·0001), in comparison to the pool of 62 radiologists with an AUROC of 0·86 (0·83-0·89), with a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in AUROC of 0·02. At the mean PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point of all readers, the AI system detected 6·8% more cases with Gleason grade group 2 or greater cancers at the same specificity (57·7%, 95% CI 51·6-63·3), or 50·4% fewer false-positive results and 20·0% fewer cases with Gleason grade group 1 cancers at the same sensitivity (89·4%, 95% CI 85·3-92·9). In all 1000 testing cases where the AI system was compared with the radiology readings made during multidisciplinary practice, non-inferiority was not confirmed, as the AI system showed lower specificity (68·9% [95% CI 65·3-72·4] vs 69·0% [65·5-72·5]) at the same sensitivity (96·1%, 94·0-98·2) as the PI-RADS 3 or greater operating point. The lower boundary of the two-sided 95% Wald CI for the difference in specificity (-0·04) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-0·05) and a p value below the significance threshold was reached (p<0·001)., Interpretation: An AI system was superior to radiologists using PI-RADS (2.1), on average, at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and comparable to the standard of care. Such a system shows the potential to be a supportive tool within a primary diagnostic setting, with several associated benefits for patients and radiologists. Prospective validation is needed to test clinical applicability of this system., Funding: Health~Holland and EU Horizon 2020., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NAO provides statistical consultation to Siemens Healthineers, Takeda, and Qure, and serves as a committee member of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group–American College of Radiology Imaging Network, the Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial, and the National Cancer Institute's Clinical Imaging Steering Committee (Bethesda, MD, USA). AB has been a consultant and advisor for Astellas and Bayer; board membership, officer, and trustee for Glactone Pharma, and LIDDS Pharma; has received lecture honoraria for Accord, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Ipsen, Janssen, and Merck; has participated in trials run by Astellas, Ferring, and Janssen; and holds stock in Glactone Pharma, LIDDS Pharma, Noviga, and WntResearch. BvG holds stocks in and is a founder of Thirona. JKC has received research funding from GE Healthcare and Genentech and is the co-inventor of software that has been licensed to Siloam Vision. JKC has equity ownership in Siloam Vision. GS has been an advisory board member of Exact Imaging and Angiogenesis and has received lecture honorarium from Hitachi. OR has received funding for travel expenses from Philips Medical Systems. ARP has received research funding from Siemens Healthineers, holds stocks in Lucida Medical, and has received lecture honoraria for Siemens Healthineers and Bayer. HH has received research funding from Siemens Healthineers and Canon Medical Systems. GV has been a clinical advisory board member of AGFA Healthcare. VK has received lecture honoraria on prostate cancer diagnosis from the European Association of Urology and Singapore Urology Association and has received research funding from Prostate Cancer UK and the John Black Charitable Foundation. DB has received lecture honorarium from Bayer Vital and holds stocks in NVIDIA, Microsoft, and MSCI-World ETF. RvdB has been an advisory board member for Janssen; has received lecture honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, Ipsen, Janssen, and MSD; has received research support from Astellas and Janssen; and has participated in trials run by Janssen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Despite the remarkable advances in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and management over the past decade, malignant tumors remain a major public health problem. Further progress in combating cancer may be enabled by personalizing the delivery of therapies according to the predicted response for each individual patient. The design of personalized therapies requires the integration of patient-specific information with an appropriate mathematical model of tumor response. A fundamental barrier to realizing this paradigm is the current lack of a rigorous yet practical mathematical theory of tumor initiation, development, invasion, and response to therapy. We begin this review with an overview of different approaches to modeling tumor growth and treatment, including mechanistic as well as data-driven models based on big data and artificial intelligence. We then present illustrative examples of mathematical models manifesting their utility and discuss the limitations of stand-alone mechanistic and data-driven models. We then discuss the potential of mechanistic models for not only predicting but also optimizing response to therapy on a patient-specific basis. We describe current efforts and future possibilities to integrate mechanistic and data-driven models. We conclude by proposing five fundamental challenges that must be addressed to fully realize personalized care for cancer patients driven by computational models.

The Radiological Society of North of America (RSNA) and the Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) Society have led a series of joint panels and seminars focused on the present impact and future directions of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. These conversations have collected viewpoints from multidisciplinary experts in radiology, medical imaging, and machine learning on the current clinical penetration of AI technology in radiology and how it is impacted by trust, reproducibility, explainability, and accountability. The collective points-both practical and philosophical-define the cultural changes for radiologists and AI scientists working together and describe the challenges ahead for AI technologies to meet broad approval. This article presents the perspectives of experts from MICCAI and RSNA on the clinical, cultural, computational, and regulatory considerations-coupled with recommended reading materials-essential to adopt AI technology successfully in radiology and, more generally, in clinical practice. The report emphasizes the importance of collaboration to improve clinical deployment, highlights the need to integrate clinical and medical imaging data, and introduces strategies to ensure smooth and incentivized integration. Keywords: Adults and Pediatrics, Computer Applications-General (Informatics), Diagnosis, Prognosis © RSNA, 2024.

Background: We recently conducted a phase 2 trial (NCT028865685) evaluating intracranial efficacy of pembrolizumab for brain metastases (BM) of diverse histologies. Our study met its primary efficacy endpoint and illustrates that pembrolizumab exerts promising activity in a select group of patients with BM. Given the importance of aberrant vasculature in mediating immunosuppression, we explored the relationship between immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) efficacy and vascular architecture in the hopes of identifying potential mechanisms of intracranial ICI response or resistance for BM., Methods: Using Vessel Architectural Imaging, a histologically validated quantitative metric for in vivo tumor vascular physiology, we analyzed dual-echo DSC/DCE MRI for 44 patients on trial. Tumor and peri-tumor cerebral blood volume/flow, vessel size, arterial and venous dominance, and vascular permeability were measured before and after treatment with pembrolizumab., Results: BM that progressed on ICI were characterized by a highly aberrant vasculature dominated by large-caliber vessels. In contrast, ICI-responsive BM possessed a more structurally balanced vasculature consisting of both small and large vessels, and there was a trend toward a decrease in under-perfused tissue, suggesting a reversal of the negative effects of hypoxia. In the peri-tumor region, the development of smaller blood vessels, consistent with neo-angiogenesis, was associated with tumor growth before radiographic evidence of contrast enhancement on anatomical MRI., Conclusions: This study, one of the largest functional imaging studies for BM, suggests that vascular architecture is linked with ICI efficacy. Studies identifying modulators of vascular architecture, and effects on immune activity, are warranted and may inform future combination treatments., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) has held artificial intelligence competitions to tackle real-world medical imaging problems at least annually since 2017. This article examines the challenges and processes involved in organizing these competitions, with a specific emphasis on the creation and curation of high-quality datasets. The collection of diverse and representative medical imaging data involves dealing with issues of patient privacy and data security. Furthermore, ensuring quality and consistency in data, which includes expert labeling and accounting for various patient and imaging characteristics, necessitates substantial planning and resources. Overcoming these obstacles requires meticulous project management and adherence to strict timelines. The article also highlights the potential of crowdsourced annotation to progress medical imaging research. Through the RSNA competitions, an effective global engagement has been realized, resulting in innovative solutions to complex medical imaging problems, thus potentially transforming health care by enhancing diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. Keywords: Use of AI in Education, Artificial Intelligence © RSNA, 2024.

Purpose: Adverse clinical events cause significant morbidity in patients with GBM (GBM). We examined whether genomic alterations were associated with AE (AE) in patients with GBM., Experimental Design: We identified adults with histologically confirmed IDH-wild-type GBM with targeted next-generation sequencing (OncoPanel) at Dana Farber Cancer Institute from 2013 to 2019. Seizure at presentation, lymphopenia, thromboembolic events, pseudoprogression, and early progression (within 6 months of diagnosis) were identified as AE. The biologic function of genetic variants was categorized as loss-of-function (LoF), no change in function, or gain-of-function (GoF) using a somatic tumor mutation knowledge base (OncoKB) and consensus protein function predictions. Associations between functional genomic alterations and AE were examined using univariate logistic regressions and multivariable regressions adjusted for additional clinical predictors., Results: Our study included 470 patients diagnosed with GBM who met the study criteria. We focused on 105 genes that had sequencing data available for ≥ 90% of the patients and were altered in ≥10% of the cohort. Following false-discovery rate (FDR) correction and multivariable adjustment, the TP53, RB1, IGF1R, and DIS3 LoF alterations were associated with lower odds of seizures, while EGFR, SMARCA4, GNA11, BRD4, and TCF3 GoF and SETD2 LoF alterations were associated with higher odds of seizures. For all other AE of interest, no significant associations were found with genomic alterations following FDR correction., Conclusions: Genomic biomarkers based on functional variant analysis of a routine clinical panel may help identify AE in GBM, particularly seizures. Identifying these risk factors could improve the management of patients through better supportive care and consideration of prophylactic therapies., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Importance: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a leading cause of blindness in children, with significant disparities in outcomes between high-income and low-income countries, due in part to insufficient access to ROP screening., Objective: To evaluate how well autonomous artificial intelligence (AI)-based ROP screening can detect more-than-mild ROP (mtmROP) and type 1 ROP., Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study evaluated the performance of an AI algorithm, trained and calibrated using 2530 examinations from 843 infants in the Imaging and Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (i-ROP) study, on 2 external datasets (6245 examinations from 1545 infants in the Stanford University Network for Diagnosis of ROP [SUNDROP] and 5635 examinations from 2699 infants in the Aravind Eye Care Systems [AECS] telemedicine programs). Data were taken from 11 and 48 neonatal care units in the US and India, respectively. Data were collected from January 2012 to July 2021, and data were analyzed from July to December 2023., Exposures: An imaging processing pipeline was created using deep learning to autonomously identify mtmROP and type 1 ROP in eye examinations performed via telemedicine., Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) as well as sensitivity and specificity for detection of mtmROP and type 1 ROP at the eye examination and patient levels., Results: The prevalence of mtmROP and type 1 ROP were 5.9% (91 of 1545) and 1.2% (18 of 1545), respectively, in the SUNDROP dataset and 6.2% (168 of 2699) and 2.5% (68 of 2699) in the AECS dataset. Examination-level AUROCs for mtmROP and type 1 ROP were 0.896 and 0.985, respectively, in the SUNDROP dataset and 0.920 and 0.982 in the AECS dataset. At the cross-sectional examination level, mtmROP detection had high sensitivity (SUNDROP: mtmROP, 83.5%; 95% CI, 76.6-87.7; type 1 ROP, 82.2%; 95% CI, 81.2-83.1; AECS: mtmROP, 80.8%; 95% CI, 76.2-84.9; type 1 ROP, 87.8%; 95% CI, 86.8-88.7). At the patient level, all infants who developed type 1 ROP screened positive (SUNDROP: 100%; 95% CI, 81.4-100; AECS: 100%; 95% CI, 94.7-100) prior to diagnosis., Conclusions and Relevance: Where and when ROP telemedicine programs can be implemented, autonomous ROP screening may be an effective force multiplier for secondary prevention of ROP.

Rationale and Objectives: Brain tumor segmentations are integral to the clinical management of patients with glioblastoma, the deadliest primary brain tumor in adults. The manual delineation of tumors is time-consuming and highly provider-dependent. These two problems must be addressed by introducing automated, deep-learning-based segmentation tools. This study aimed to identify criteria experts use to evaluate the quality of automatically generated segmentations and their thought processes as they correct them., Materials and Methods: Multiple methods were used to develop a detailed understanding of the complex factors that shape experts' perception of segmentation quality and their thought processes in correcting proposed segmentations. Data from a questionnaire and semistructured interview with neuro-oncologists and neuroradiologists were collected between August and December 2021 and analyzed using a combined deductive and inductive approach., Results: Brain tumors are highly complex and ambiguous segmentation targets. Therefore, physicians rely heavily on the given context related to the patient and clinical context in evaluating the quality and need to correct brain tumor segmentation. Most importantly, the intended clinical application determines the segmentation quality criteria and editing decisions. Physicians' personal beliefs and preferences about the capabilities of AI algorithms and whether questionable areas should not be included are additional criteria influencing the perception of segmentation quality and appearance of an edited segmentation., Conclusion: Our findings on experts' perceptions of segmentation quality will allow the design of improved frameworks for expert-centered evaluation of brain tumor segmentation models. In particular, the knowledge presented here can inspire the development of brain tumor-specific metrics for segmentation model training and evaluation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer reports financial support was provided by National Cancer Institute. Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer reports a relationship with Bayer Corporation that includes funding grants. Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer reports a relationship with Genentech Inc that includes funding grants. Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer reports a relationship with General Electric Company that includes funding grants. Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer reports a relationship with Siloam Vision Llc that includes consulting or advisory. Competing Interests BRR is on the advisory board for ARIA, Butterfly, Inc., DGMIF (Daegu-Gyeongbuk Medical Innovation Foundation), QMENTA, Subtle Medical, Inc., is a consultant for Broadview Ventures, Janssen Scientific, ECRI Institute, GlaxoSmithKline, Hyperfine Research, Inc., Peking University, Wolf Greenfield, Superconducting Systems, Inc., Robins Kaplin, LLC, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, Siemens, Quinn Emanuel Trial Lawyers, Samsung, Shenzhen Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, and is a founder of BLINKAI Technologies, Inc. JKC has received research funding (to the institution) from Genentech, GE, and Bayer and is a consultant for Siloam Vision Llc., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The HPV-automated visual evaluation (PAVE) Study is an extensive, multinational initiative designed to advance cervical cancer prevention in resource-constrained regions. Cervical cancer disproportionally affects regions with limited access to preventive measures. PAVE aims to assess a novel screening-triage-treatment strategy integrating self-sampled HPV testing, deep-learning-based automated visual evaluation (AVE), and targeted therapies., Methods: Phase 1 efficacy involves screening up to 100,000 women aged 25-49 across nine countries, using self-collected vaginal samples for hierarchical HPV evaluation: HPV16, else HPV18/45, else HPV31/33/35/52/58, else HPV39/51/56/59/68 else negative. HPV-positive individuals undergo further evaluation, including pelvic exams, cervical imaging, and biopsies. AVE algorithms analyze images, assigning risk scores for precancer, validated against histologic high-grade precancer. Phase 1, however, does not integrate AVE results into patient management, contrasting them with local standard care.Phase 2 effectiveness focuses on deploying AVE software and HPV genotype data in real-time clinical decision-making, evaluating feasibility, acceptability, cost-effectiveness, and health communication of the PAVE strategy in practice., Results: Currently, sites have commenced fieldwork, and conclusive results are pending., Conclusions: The study aspires to validate a screen-triage-treat protocol utilizing innovative biomarkers to deliver an accurate, feasible, and cost-effective strategy for cervical cancer prevention in resource-limited areas. Should the study validate PAVE, its broader implementation could be recommended, potentially expanding cervical cancer prevention worldwide., Funding: The consortial sites are responsible for their own study costs. Research equipment and supplies, and the NCI-affiliated staff are funded by the National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program including supplemental funding from the Cancer Cures Moonshot Initiative. No commercial support was obtained. Brian Befano was supported by NCI/ NIH under Grant T32CA09168., Competing Interests: Sd, RP, NC, FI, DE, AR, JJ, LC, KD, PH, AN, AU, JM, SA, NW, JK, MS No competing interests declared, BB is an employee of Information Management Services Inc

Novel screening and diagnostic tests based on artificial intelligence (AI) image recognition algorithms are proliferating. Some initial reports claim outstanding accuracy followed by disappointing lack of confirmation, including our own early work on cervical screening. This is a presentation of lessons learned, organized as a conceptual step-by-step approach to bridge the gap between the creation of an AI algorithm and clinical efficacy. The first fundamental principle is specifying rigorously what the algorithm is designed to identify and what the test is intended to measure (eg, screening, diagnostic, or prognostic). Second, designing the AI algorithm to minimize the most clinically important errors. For example, many equivocal cervical images cannot yet be labeled because the borderline between cases and controls is blurred. To avoid a misclassified case-control dichotomy, we have isolated the equivocal cases and formally included an intermediate, indeterminate class (severity order of classes: case>indeterminate>control). The third principle is evaluating AI algorithms like any other test, using clinical epidemiologic criteria. Repeatability of the algorithm at the borderline, for indeterminate images, has proven extremely informative. Distinguishing between internal and external validation is also essential. Linking the AI algorithm results to clinical risk estimation is the fourth principle. Absolute risk (not relative) is the critical metric for translating a test result into clinical use. Finally, generating risk-based guidelines for clinical use that match local resources and priorities is the last principle in our approach. We are particularly interested in applications to lower-resource settings to address health disparities. We note that similar principles apply to other domains of AI-based image analysis for medical diagnostic testing., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)