La Radiologia medica · 2025
Automation bias in AI-assisted detection of cerebral aneurysms on time-of-flight MR angiography.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Su Hwan, Schramm Severin, Riedel Evamaria Olga, Schmitzer Lena, Rosenkranz Enrike, Kertels Olivia, Bodden Jannis, Paprottka Karolin, Sepp Dominik, Renz Martin, Kirschke Jan, Baum Thomas, Maegerlein Christian, Boeckh-Behrens Tobias, Zimmer Claus, Wiestler Benedikt, Hedderich Dennis M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine how automation bias (inclination of humans to overly trust-automated decision-making systems) can affect radiologists when interpreting AI-detected cerebral aneurysm findings in time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (TOF-MRA) studies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine radiologists with varying levels of experience evaluated twenty TOF-MRA examinations for the presence of cerebral aneurysms. Every case was evaluated with and without assistance by the AI software © mdbrain, with a washout period of at least four weeks in-between. Half of the cases included at least one false-positive AI finding. Aneurysm ratings, follow-up recommendations, and reading times were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: False-positive AI results led to significantly higher suspicion of aneurysm findings (p = 0.01). Inexperienced readers further recommended significantly more intense follow-up examinations when presented with false-positive AI findings (p = 0.005). Reading times were significantly shorter with AI assistance in inexperienced (164.1 vs 228.2 s; p < 0.001), moderately experienced (126.2 vs 156.5 s; p < 0.009), and very experienced (117.9 vs 153.5 s; p < 0.001) readers alike.
CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the susceptibility of radiology readers to automation bias in detecting cerebral aneurysms in TOF-MRA studies when encountering false-positive AI findings. While AI systems for cerebral aneurysm detection can provide benefits, challenges in human-AI interaction need to be mitigated to ensure safe and effective adoption.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine radiologists with varying levels of experience evaluated twenty TOF-MRA examinations for the presence of cerebral aneurysms. Every case was evaluated with and without assistance by the AI software © mdbrain, with a washout period of at least four weeks in-between. Half of the cases included at least one false-positive AI finding. Aneurysm ratings, follow-up recommendations, and reading times were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: False-positive AI results led to significantly higher suspicion of aneurysm findings (p = 0.01). Inexperienced readers further recommended significantly more intense follow-up examinations when presented with false-positive AI findings (p = 0.005). Reading times were significantly shorter with AI assistance in inexperienced (164.1 vs 228.2 s; p < 0.001), moderately experienced (126.2 vs 156.5 s; p < 0.009), and very experienced (117.9 vs 153.5 s; p < 0.001) readers alike.
CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the susceptibility of radiology readers to automation bias in detecting cerebral aneurysms in TOF-MRA studies when encountering false-positive AI findings. While AI systems for cerebral aneurysm detection can provide benefits, challenges in human-AI interaction need to be mitigated to ensure safe and effective adoption.