Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is AI the Ultimate QA?

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We are among the many that believe that artificial intelligence will not replace practitioners and is most valuable as an adjunct in diagnostic radiology. We suggest a different approach to utilizing the technology, which may help even radiologists who may be averse to adopting AI. A novel method of leveraging AI combines computer vision and natural language processing to ambiently function in the background, monitoring for critical care gaps. This AI Quality workflow uses a visual classifier to predict the likelihood of a finding of interest, such as a lung nodule, and then leverages natural language processing to review a radiologist’s report, identifying discrepancies between imaging and documentation. Comparing artificial intelligence predictions with natural language processing report extractions with artificial intelligence in the background of computer-aided detection decisions may offer numerous potential benefits, including streamlined workflow, improved detection quality, an alternative approach to thinking of AI, and possibly even indemnity against malpractice. Here we consider early indications of the potential of artificial intelligence as the ultimate quality assurance for radiologists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, Abraham L, Sickles EA, D’Orsi C, Berns EA, Cutter G, Hendrick RE, Barlow WE, Elmore JG. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 5;356(14):1399-409.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ridley EL. Most radiology AI studies lack proper validation. AuntMinnie.com. March 8, 2019. https://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=124838. Accessed 4 Jan 2022.

  3. Kaushal A, Altman R, Langlotz C. Geographic distribution of US cohorts used to train deep learning algorithms. JAMA. 2020 Sep 22;324(12):1212-1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wiesner JB. A novel approach to accurately measuring the distribution of missed lung nodule within an institution using AI-enhanced peer review. Conference on Machine Intelligence in Medical Imaging. September 13–14, 2020.

  5. Tan JR, Cheong EHT, Chan LP, Tham WP. Implementation of an artificial intelligence-based double read system in capturing pulmonary nodule discrepancy in CT studies. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2021 Mar-Apr;50(2):119–122.

  6. April D, Love M, Harrold R, Frischertz S, Kay D, Rudman E, et al. Identification of missed pulmonary nodules through machine learning and natural language processing. Poster presentation, American College of Radiology. October 20, 2020.

  7. Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH. Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics. 2015 Oct;35(6):1668-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee KH, Goo JM, Park CM, Lee HJ, Jin KN. Computer-aided detection of malignant lung nodules on chest radiographs: effect on observers’ performance. Korean J Radiol. 2012 Sep-Oct;13(5):564–71.

  9. Heaven WD. Jumbled-up sentences show that Ais still don’t really understand language. MIT Technology Review. January 12, 2021.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins Medicine, 601 North Caroline Street, MD, 21287, Baltimore, USA

    Edmund M. Weisberg, Linda C. Chu & Elliot K. Fishman

  2. Transcarent, Inc., 2 S Park St., FL. 1, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA

    Benjamin D. Nguyen

  3. Ferrum Health, 440 North Wolfe Road, CA, 94085, Sunnyvale, USA

    Pelu Tran

Authors
  1. Edmund M. Weisberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda C. Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin D. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pelu Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elliot K. Fishman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the writing of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edmund M. Weisberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Co-authors Weisberg, Chu, and Fishman received funding from the Lustgarten Foundation, and declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nguyen is the product manager of Transcarent, and Mr. Tran is the Chief Executive Officer of Ferrum Health, whose product is mentioned in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weisberg, E.M., Chu, L.C., Nguyen, B.D. et al. Is AI the Ultimate QA?. J Digit Imaging 35, 534–537 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00598-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-022-00598-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation