Chan, Heang‐Ping

Abstract Innovation in medical imaging artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) demands extensive data collection, algorithmic advancements, and rigorous performance assessments encompassing aspects such as generalizability, uncertainty, bias, fairness, trustworthiness, and interpretability. Achieving widespread integration of AI/ML algorithms into diverse clinical tasks will demand a steadfast commitment to overcoming issues in model design, development, and performance assessment. The complexities of AI/ML clinical translation present substantial challenges, requiring engagement with relevant stakeholders, assessment of cost-effectiveness for user and patient benefit, timely dissemination of information relevant to robust functioning throughout the AI/ML lifecycle, consideration of regulatory compliance, and feedback loops for real-world performance evidence. This commentary addresses several hurdles for the development and adoption of AI/ML technologies in medical imaging. Comprehensive attention to these underlying and often subtle factors is critical not only for tackling the challenges but also for exploring novel opportunities for the advancement of AI in radiology.

Abstract The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in medicine poses challenges to existing clinical workflows. This commentary discusses the necessity of context-specific quality assurance (QA), emphasizing the need for robust QA measures with quality control (QC) procedures that encompass (1) acceptance testing (AT) before clinical use, (2) continuous QC monitoring, and (3) adequate user training. The discussion also covers essential components of AT and QA, illustrated with real-world examples. We also highlight what we see as the shared responsibility of manufacturers or vendors, regulators, healthcare systems, medical physicists, and clinicians to enact appropriate testing and oversight to ensure a safe and equitable transformation of medicine through AI.

Abstract Mammographic density measures adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) are heritable predictors of breast cancer risk, but few mammographic density-associated genetic variants have been identified. Using data for 10,727 women from two international consortia, we estimated associations between 77 common breast cancer susceptibility variants and absolute dense area, percent dense area and absolute nondense area adjusted for study, age, and BMI using mixed linear modeling. We found strong support for established associations between rs10995190 (in the region of ZNF365), rs2046210 (ESR1), and rs3817198 (LSP1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas (all P < 10−5). Of 41 recently discovered breast cancer susceptibility variants, associations were found between rs1432679 (EBF1), rs17817449 (MIR1972-2: FTO), rs12710696 (2p24.1), and rs3757318 (ESR1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas, respectively. There were associations between rs6001930 (MKL1) and both adjusted absolute dense and nondense areas, and between rs17356907 (NTN4) and adjusted absolute nondense area. Trends in all but two associations were consistent with those for breast cancer risk. Results suggested that 18% of breast cancer susceptibility variants were associated with at least one mammographic density measure. Genetic variants at multiple loci were associated with both breast cancer risk and the mammographic density measures. Further understanding of the underlying mechanisms at these loci could help identify etiologic pathways implicated in how mammographic density predicts breast cancer risk. Cancer Res; 75(12); 2457–67. ©2015 AACR.