Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Integrating AI into Radiology workflow: Levels of research, production, and feedback maturity

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1910.06424 v1 pith:DW3ND6SI submitted 2019-10-14 eess.IV

classification eess.IV
keywords radiologistsai-basedfeedbackapplicationlevelsmaturityresultsbrain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

This report represents a roadmap for integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based image analysis algorithms into existing Radiology workflows such that: (1) radiologists can significantly benefit from enhanced automation in various imaging tasks due to AI; and (2) radiologists' feedback is utilized to further improve the AI application. This is achieved by establishing three maturity levels where: (1) research enables the visualization of AI-based results/annotations by radiologists without generating new patient records; (2) production allows the AI-based system to generate results stored in an institution's Picture Archiving and Communication System; and (3) feedback equips radiologists with tools for editing the AI inference results for periodic retraining of the deployed AI systems, thereby allowing the continuous organic improvement of AI-based radiology-workflow solutions. A case study (i.e., detection of brain metastases with T1-weighted contrast-enhanced 3D MRI) illustrates the deployment details of a particular AI-based application according to the aforementioned maturity levels. It is shown that the given AI application significantly improves with the feedback coming from radiologists; the number of incorrectly detected brain metastases (false positives) reduces from 14.2 to 9.12 per patient with the number of subsequently annotated datasets increasing from 93 to 217 as a result of radiologist adjudication.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools