Abstract
Background As a fast-advancing technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has considerable potential to assist physicians in various clinical tasks from disease identification to lesion segmentation. Despite much research, AI has not yet been applied to neurooncological imaging in a clinically meaningful way. To bridge the clinical implementation gap of AI in neuro-oncological settings, we conducted a clinical user-based evaluation, analogous to the phase II clinical trial, to evaluate the utility of AI for diagnostic predictions and the value of AI explanations on the glioma grading task.
Method Using the publicly-available BraTS dataset, we trained an AI model of 88.0% accuracy on the glioma grading task. We selected the SmoothGrad explainable AI Weina Jin and Mostafa Fatehi are co-first authors.
algorithm based on the computational evaluation regarding explanation truthfulness among a candidate of 16 commonly-used algorithms. SmoothGrad could explain the AI model’s prediction using a heatmap overlaid on the MRI to highlight important regions for AI prediction. The evaluation is an online survey wherein the AI prediction and explanation are embedded. Each of the 35 neurosurgeon participants read 25 brain MRI scans of patients with gliomas, and gave their judgment on the glioma grading without and with the assistance of AI’s prediction and explanation.
Result Compared to the average accuracy of 82.5 ± 8.7% when physicians perform the task alone, physicians’ task performance increased to 87.7 ± 7.3% with statistical significance (p-value = 0.002) when assisted by AI prediction, and remained at almost the same level of 88.5 ± 7.0% (p-value = 0.35) with the additional AI explanation assistance.
Conclusion The evaluation shows the clinical utility of AI to assist physicians on the glioma grading task. It also reveals the limitations of applying existing AI explanation techniques in clinical settings.
Key points
Phase II evaluation with 35 neurosurgeons on the clinical utility of AI and its explanation
AI prediction assistance improved physicians’ performance on the glioma grading task
Additional AI explanation assistance did not yield a performance boost
Importance of the study This study is the first phase II AI clinical evaluation in neuro-oncology. Evaluating AI is a prerequisite for its clinical deployment. The four phases of AI clinical evaluation are analogous to the four phases of clinical trials. Prior works that apply AI in neurooncology utilize phase I algorithmic evaluation, which do not reflect how AI can be used in clinical settings to support physician decision making.
To bridge the research gap, we conducted the first clinical evaluation to assess the joint neurosurgeon-AI task performance. The evaluation also includes AI explanation as an indispensable feature for AI clinical deployment. Results from quantitative and qualitative data analysis are presented for a detailed examination of the clinical utility of AI and its explanation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by BC Cancer Foundation--BrainCare Fund. This research was also enabled in part by the computational resources provided by NVIDIA and the Digital Research Alliance of Canada (alliancecan.ca).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Simon Fraser University gave ethical approval for this work, Ethics number: H20-03588
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data and code will be made available upon publication.
