4.2 Article

Computerized Decision Support for Bladder Cancer Treatment Response Assessment in CT Urography: Effect on Diagnostic Accuracy in Multi-Institution Multi-Specialty Study

Journal

TOMOGRAPHY
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 644-656

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/tomography8020054

Keywords

observer study; computer-aided diagnosis; bladder cancer; treatment response

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01-CA232931, R25-NS065723]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This observer study investigates the impact of a computerized artificial intelligence decision support system on physicians' diagnostic accuracy in assessing bladder cancer treatment response. The study found that the system significantly improved the performance of the physicians and that specific factors of the cancer cases also influenced the diagnostic results.
This observer study investigates the effect of computerized artificial intelligence (AI)-based decision support system (CDSS-T) on physicians' diagnostic accuracy in assessing bladder cancer treatment response. The performance of 17 observers was evaluated when assessing bladder cancer treatment response without and with CDSS-T using pre- and post-chemotherapy CTU scans in 123 patients having 157 pre- and post-treatment cancer pairs. The impact of cancer case difficulty, observers' clinical experience, institution affiliation, specialty, and the assessment times on the observers' diagnostic performance with and without using CDSS-T were analyzed. It was found that the average performance of the 17 observers was significantly improved (p = 0.002) when aided by the CDSS-T. The cancer case difficulty, institution affiliation, specialty, and the assessment times influenced the observers' performance without CDSS-T. The AI-based decision support system has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy in assessing bladder cancer treatment response and result in more consistent performance among all physicians.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available