Artificial intelligence–based image analysis in clinical testing: lessons from cervical cancer screening

• Published in: JNCI : Journal of the National Cancer Institute Vol. 116; no. 1; pp. 26 - 33
• Main Authors: Egemen, Didem, Perkins, Rebecca B, Cheung, Li C, Befano, Brian, Rodriguez, Ana Cecilia, Desai, Kanan, Lemay, Andreanne, Ahmed, Syed Rakin, Antani, Sameer, Jeronimo, Jose, Wentzensen, Nicolas, Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree, De Sanjose, Silvia, Schiffman, Mark
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Oxford University Press 10.01.2024; Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
• Subjects: Algorithms; Artificial Intelligence; Cancer screening; Cervical cancer; Diagnostic tests; Early Detection of Cancer; Epidemiology; Female; Humans; Image analysis; Image processing; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Medical imaging; Medical screening; Risk; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis
• ISSN: 0027-8874; 1460-2105; 1460-2105
• DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djad202

Abstract 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.