Search

Artificial intelligence algorithms are booming in medicine, and the question of biases induced or perpetuated by these tools is a very important topic. There is a greater risk of these biases in radiology, which is now the primary diagnostic tool in modern treatment. Some authors have recently proposed an analysis framework for social inequalities and the biases at risk of being introduced into future algorithms. In our paper, we comment on the different strategies for resolving these biases. We warn that there is an even greater risk in mixing the notion of equity, the definition of which is socio-political, into the design stages of these algorithms. We believe that rather than being beneficial, this could in fact harm the main purpose of these artificial intelligence tools, which is the care of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In oncology clinical trials, nonconformity issues are frequently reported. Radiological workload is increasing, thus reducing radiologists' availability and affecting diagnostic quality. We compared performances of a standard radiological workflow (SW) and a novel "hybrid workflow" (HW).Method: We prospectively studied imaging data of 40 patients included in RECIST 1.1 clinical trials. Ninety-six time-points were reviewed by 7 radiologists and one trained technologist. Nonconformities using the SW were retrieved from hospital archives. For the HW, radiologists performed all baseline evaluations; the technologist made subsequent measurements. Finally, the radiologists checked the technologist's findings before confirming the evaluations. The HW enabled implementation of an electronic reporting system. An independent body compared SW and HW reading times and nonconformity occurrences.Results: Using SW, 19 types of nonconformity were found: blank report (13%); unsigned report (11%); undocumented change of tumor burden (10%); undocumented new lesions (9%); missing/wrong patients' appointment dates (7%); undocumented tumor location (5%); error in tumor burden change (5%). SW and HW nonconformities affected 55% (179/323) and 5% (2/40) of reports, respectively (p < 0.001). HW nonconformities were: one inaccurate login name was used on the platform, and one erroneous time-point number. On average, SW required 11'30″ [10'06″; 13'20″] per time-point. HW required 1'35″ [40″; 5'08″] for radiologists, and 12'18″ [11'12″; 14'18″] for the technologist.Conclusions: HW significantly reduced the number of trial nonconformities and saved 87% of radiologists' time while enabling them to apply their expertise to final decisions. HW could offer an effective opportunity for cost reduction associated with improved imaging trial quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The measure of body surface area (BSA) is a standard for planning optimal dosing in oncology. This index is derived from a model having questionable performances. In this study, we proposed measurement of BSA from whole body CT images (iBSA). We tested the reliability of iBSA assessments and simulated the impact of our approach on patient chemotherapy dosage planning. Methods: We first evaluated accuracy and precision of iBSA in measuring 14 phantom and 11 CT test-retest images.Secondly, we retrospectively analyzed 26 whole body PET-CT scans to evaluate inter-method variability between iBSA and the most used anthropomorphic models, notably the “Du Bois and Du Bois” model. Finally, we simulated the impact on chemotherapy dose planning of capecitabine based on iBSA. Results: Precision and accuracy of iBSA measurement featured a standard deviation of 1.11% and a mean error of 1.53%. Inter-method variability between iBSA and “Du Bois and Du Bois” assessment featured a standard deviation of 4.11% leading to a reclassification rate of capecitabine of 32.5%. Conclusions: iBSA could help the oncologist in standardizing assessments for chemotherapy planning. iBSA could also be relevant for applications such as comprehensive body composition and provide a sensitive measurement for changes related to nutritional intake or other metabolism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]