Rokke, Denise

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) augmented laboratory tests can improve quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and staff satisfaction. However, the clinical success of these tests can introduce unforeseen challenges for model retraining. This study describes the discovery of an “AI label feedback loop” in a clinically implemented AI-augmented kidney stone composition test. Methods An AI-augmented kidney stone composition test (V1) has been previously deployed for clinical kidney stone characterization. After several years of clinical use, a retrained model (V2) was developed using 6 times more data. Model performance of both V1 and V2 were evaluated across 3 datasets: a recent production validation (hold-out) set (mostly AI-influenced labels), the original V1 validation set (pre-AI, entirely human-labeled), and a subset of recent cases with exclusively human-generated or human-corrected labels. Results V2 demonstrated a 10% lower concordance rate than V1 when evaluated on the recent production hold-out set, despite a much larger training dataset. Performance between V1 and V2 was similar when applied to the pre-AI validation set. Notably, V2 outperformed V1 on the recent subset of cases with human-only or human-corrected labels, particularly for less-common stone types. These findings revealed an AI label feedback loop, confounding retraining and evaluation. Conclusions The integration of AI into clinical practice can potentially influence reported test results, complicating the development and evaluation of future models. To mitigate AI label feedback loops, ongoing human annotation and careful validation set construction are essential. These strategies can ensure reliable performance assessment and support the safe evolution of clinical AI systems.

Abstract Background We sought to evaluate key performance indicators related to an internally developed and deployed artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented kidney stone composition test system for potential improvements in test quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and staff satisfaction. Methods We compared quality, efficiency, staff satisfaction, and financial data from the 6 months after the AI-augmented laboratory test system was deployed (test period) with data from the same 6-month period in the previous year (control period) to determine if AI-augmentation improved key performance indicators of this laboratory test. Results In the 6 months following the deployment (test period) of the AI-augmented kidney stone composition test system, 44 830 kidney stones were analyzed. Of these, 92% of kidney stones were eligible for AI-assisted interpretation. Out of these AI-eligible stones, 45% were able to be auto-released by the AI-augmented test system without human secondary review. Furthermore, the new AI-augmented kidney stone test system resulted in an apparent 40% reduction in incorrect laboratory results. Additionally, the new AI-augmented test system improved laboratory efficiency by 20%, improved staff satisfaction, and reduced the average analysis cost per kidney stone by $0.23. Conclusions The AI-augmented test system improved test quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and staff satisfaction related to this kidney stone composition test.

Abstract Background Analytical and post-analytical errors are a persistent problem, which can be benchmarked using sigma metrics. Manual processes are associated with error rates of 3–4 sigma. Secondary review of manual reporting is meant to reduce/eliminate errors and is widely used, yet the true efficacy of manual secondary review is difficult to assess. Kidney stone analysis is a manually intensive process, requiring personnel to identify stone composition from spectra and to transcribe stone percent composition into an LIS system. Recently, we developed an AI program that allows for quantitative determination of kidney stone composition from spectra. This allows for a unique opportunity to estimate error rates associated with manual reporting and those following secondary review by means of subsequent AI quality assurance analysis. Methods Experienced technologists assessed stone composition and estimated the percent of each component (± 10%), based on Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. These manual spectral composition assessments are secondarily reviewed by other experienced technologists for identity and percentage composition accuracy. The recently described Kidney stone AI spectral analysis (RokkStar) was implemented to assess reported stone composition identity and percent composition for agreement following secondary review in 159 334 stone reports. AI flagged discrepant reports were reviewed by personnel and reports were revised when appropriate. Secondary reviewer error detection rate was obtained by monitoring detection in a subset of 7440 kidney stones, and was that rate was extrapolated to establish secondary review error detection rate over the entire data set. The sum (total error) of estimated secondary reviewer error detection, and well as AI-mediated error detection, and all client reported errors were used to determine error rates in sigma following manual reporting, secondary review, and AI quality assurance. Results Manual entry led to an estimated 2060 errors in 159 334 stone reports, yielding an initial sigma value of 3.73. Secondary manual review resulted in an estimated 1909 (error detection rate of 92.5%) of these errors being detected over the entire report set, improving the sigma value to 4.61. Post-verification AI caught an additional 138 errors, leading to an improved post-AI sigma value of 5.27. Post-AI quality assurance, there were 13 remaining errors, 9 of which were manual reporting process deviations subsequently caught by laboratory staff, and 4 were reporting errors observed by client physicians. All 13 of these errors involved usual stone constituents or typographical errors that were not assessed by the current AI quality assurance version. Conclusion This study represents a unique large-scale estimate of efficacy of secondary result review by means of AI quality assurance review. While the presence of undetected errors cannot be completely ruled out, in this case the relative paucity of client reported errors, as well the alignment of the estimated rate of manual errors with previous reports may indicate that most errors were detected in this system. Importantly, manual secondary review improved errors rates by ∼0.9 sigma, and the use of AI further improved estimated overall sigma metric by ∼0.7, leading to a “world class” 5+ sigma level for this complex reporting process.

ABSTRACTWe report an unusual case of a foreign body removed from the urinary bladder of a 63-year-old male which mimicked a parasitic worm. The foreign body was identified as an artificial fishing worm by morphological comparison to a similar commercially produced product and by infrared spectrum analysis.