Yazar "Seker, Mustafa Ege" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Diagnostic capabilities of artificial intelligence as an additional reader in a breast cancer screening program
    (Springer, 2024) Seker, Mustafa Ege; Koyluoglu, Yilmaz Onat; Ozaydin, Ayse Nilufer; Gurdal, Sibel Ozkan; Ozcinar, Beyza; Cabioglu, Neslihan; Ozmen, Vahit
    ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the early-detection capabilities of AI in a screening program over its duration, with a specific focus on the detection of interval cancers, the early detection of cancers with the assistance of AI from prior visits, and its impact on workload for various reading scenarios.Materials and methodsThe study included 22,621 mammograms of 8825 women within a 10-year biennial two-reader screening program. The statistical analysis focused on 5136 mammograms from 4282 women due to data retrieval issues, among whom 105 were diagnosed with breast cancer. The AI software assigned scores from 1 to 100. Histopathology results determined the ground truth, and Youden's index was used to establish a threshold. Tumor characteristics were analyzed with ANOVA and chi-squared test, and different workflow scenarios were evaluated using bootstrapping.ResultsThe AI software achieved an AUC of 89.6% (86.1-93.2%, 95% CI). The optimal threshold was 30.44, yielding 72.38% sensitivity and 92.86% specificity. Initially, AI identified 57 screening-detected cancers (83.82%), 15 interval cancers (51.72%), and 4 missed cancers (50%). AI as a second reader could have led to earlier diagnosis in 24 patients (average 29.92 +/- 19.67 months earlier). No significant differences were found in cancer-characteristics groups. A hybrid triage workflow scenario showed a potential 69.5% reduction in workload and a 30.5% increase in accuracy.ConclusionThis AI system exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in screening mammograms, effectively identifying interval and missed cancers and identifying 23% of cancers earlier in prior mammograms. Adopting AI as a triage mechanism has the potential to reduce workload by nearly 70%.Clinical relevance statementThe study proposes a more efficient method for screening programs, both in terms of workload and accuracy.Key Points center dot Incorporating AI as a triage tool in screening workflow improves sensitivity (72.38%) and specificity (92.86%), enhancing detection rates for interval and missed cancers.center dot AI-assisted triaging is effective in differentiating low and high-risk cases, reduces radiologist workload, and potentially enables broader screening coverage.center dot AI has the potential to facilitate early diagnosis compared to human reading.Key Points center dot Incorporating AI as a triage tool in screening workflow improves sensitivity (72.38%) and specificity (92.86%), enhancing detection rates for interval and missed cancers.center dot AI-assisted triaging is effective in differentiating low and high-risk cases, reduces radiologist workload, and potentially enables broader screening coverage.center dot AI has the potential to facilitate early diagnosis compared to human reading.Key Points center dot Incorporating AI as a triage tool in screening workflow improves sensitivity (72.38%) and specificity (92.86%), enhancing detection rates for interval and missed cancers.center dot AI-assisted triaging is effective in differentiating low and high-risk cases, reduces radiologist workload, and potentially enables broader screening coverage.center dot AI has the potential to facilitate early diagnosis compared to human reading.
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Diagnostic Performance of AI for Cancers Registered in A Mammography Screening Program: A Retrospective Analysis
    (Sage Publications Inc, 2022) Kizildag Yirgin, İnci; Koyluoglu, Yılmaz Onat; Seker, Mustafa Ege; Gürdal, Sibel Özkan; Özaydın, Ayşe Nilüfer; Özçınar, Beyza; Arıbal, Erkin
    Purpose: To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm in a simulated screening setting and its effectiveness in detecting missed and interval cancers. Methods: Digital mammograms were collected from Bahcesehir Mammographic Screening Program which is the first organized, population-based, 10-year (2009-2019) screening program in Turkey. In total, 211 mammograms were extracted from the archive of the screening program in this retrospective study. One hundred ten of them were diagnosed as breast cancer (74 screen-detected, 27 interval, 9 missed), 101 of them were negative mammograms with a follow-up for at least 24 months. Cancer detection rates of radiologists in the screening program were compared with an AI system. Three different mammography assessment methods were used: (1) 2 radiologists' assessment at screening center, (2) AI assessment based on the established risk score threshold, (3) a hypothetical radiologist and AI team-up in which AI was considered to be the third reader. Results: Area under curve was 0.853 (95% CI = 0.801-0.905) and the cut-off value for risk score was 34.5% with a sensitivity of 72.8% and a specificity of 88.3% for AI cancer detection in ROC analysis. Cancer detection rates were 67.3% for radiologists, 72.7% for AI, and 83.6% for radiologist and AI team-up. AI detected 72.7% of all cancers on its own, of which 77.5% were screen-detected, 15% were interval cancers, and 7.5% were missed cancers. Conclusion: AI may potentially enhance the capacity of breast cancer screening programs by increasing cancer detection rates and decreasing false-negative evaluations.