The implementation of artificial intelligence in radiology: a narrative review of patient perspectives

Public Awareness of and Attitudes Toward the Use of AI in Pathology Research and Practice: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The last decade has witnessed major advances in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for use in health care. One of the most promising areas of research that has potential clinical utility is the use of AI in pathology to aid cancer diagnosis and management. While the value of using AI to improve the efficiency and accuracy of diagnosis cannot be underestimated, there are challenges in the development and implementation of such technologies. Notably, questions remain about public support for the use of AI to assist in pathological diagnosis and for the use of health care data, including data obtained from tissue samples, to train algorithms.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate public awareness of and attitudes toward AI in pathology research and practice.

METHODS

A nationally representative, cross-sectional, web-based mixed methods survey (N=1518) was conducted to assess the UK public's awareness of and views on the use of AI in pathology research and practice. Respondents were recruited via Prolific, an online research platform. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be aged >18 years, be UK residents, and have the capacity to express their own opinion. Respondents answered 30 closed-ended questions and 2 open-ended questions. Sociodemographic information and previous experience with cancer were collected. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze quantitative data; qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Awareness was low, with only 23.19% (352/1518) of the respondents somewhat or moderately aware of AI being developed for use in pathology. Most did not support a diagnosis of cancer (908/1518, 59.82%) or a diagnosis based on biomarkers (694/1518, 45.72%) being made using AI only. However, most (1478/1518, 97.36%) supported diagnoses made by pathologists with AI assistance. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for supporting AI in cancer diagnosis and management was higher for men (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02-1.75). Greater awareness (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10-1.42), greater trust in data security and privacy protocols (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07), and more positive beliefs (aOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.20-1.36) also increased support, whereas identifying more risks reduced the likelihood of support (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89). In total, 3 main themes emerged from the qualitative data: bringing the public along, the human in the loop, and more hard evidence needed, indicating conditional support for AI in pathology with human decision-making oversight, robust measures for data handling and protection, and evidence for AI benefit and effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of AI's potential use in pathology was low, but attitudes were positive, with high but conditional support. Challenges remain, particularly among women, regarding AI use in cancer diagnosis and management. Apprehension persists about the access to and use of health care data by private organizations.

Acceptability of artificial intelligence in breast screening: focus groups with the screening-eligible population in England

Introduction

Preliminary studies of artificial intelligence (AI) tools developed to support breast screening demonstrate the potential to reduce radiologist burden and improve cancer detection which could lead to improved breast cancer outcomes. This study explores the public acceptability of the use of AI in breast screening from the perspective of screening-eligible women in England.

Methods

64 women in England, aged 50-70 years (eligible for breast screening) and 45-49 years (approaching eligibility), participated in 12 focus groups-8 online and 4 in person. Specific scenarios in which AI may be used in the mammogram reading process were presented. Data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Four themes described public perceptions of AI in breast screening found in this study: (1) Things going wrong and being missed summarises a predominant and pervasive concern about an AI tool being used in breast screening; (2) Speed of change and loss of control captures a positive association of AI with technological advances held by the women but also feelings of things being out of their control, and that they were being left behind and in the dark; (3) The importance of humans reports concern around the possibility that AI excludes humans and renders them redundant and (4) Desire for thorough research, staggered implementation and double-checking of scans included insistence that any AI be thoroughly trialled, tested and not solely relied on when initially implemented.

Conclusions

It will be essential that future decision-making and communication about AI implementation in breast screening (and, likely, in healthcare more widely) address concerns surrounding (1) the fallibility of AI, (2) lack of inclusion, control and transparency in relation to healthcare and technology decisions and (3) humans being left redundant and unneeded, while building on women's hopes for the technology.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in Health Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) use cases in health care are on the rise, with the potential to improve operational efficiency and care outcomes. However, the translation of AI into practical, everyday use has been limited, as its effectiveness relies on successful implementation and adoption by clinicians, patients, and other health care stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

As adoption is a key factor in the successful proliferation of an innovation, this scoping review aimed at presenting an overview of the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using the guidance provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, and ScienceDirect databases were searched to identify publications in English that reported on the barriers to or facilitators of AI adoption in health care. This review focused on articles published between January 2011 and December 2023. The review did not have any limitations regarding the health care setting (hospital or community) or the population (patients, clinicians, physicians, or health care administrators). A thematic analysis was conducted on the selected articles to map factors associated with the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care.

RESULTS

A total of 2514 articles were identified in the initial search. After title and abstract reviews, 50 (1.99%) articles were included in the final analysis. These articles were reviewed for the barriers to and facilitators of AI adoption in health care. Most articles were empirical studies, literature reviews, reports, and thought articles. Approximately 18 categories of barriers and facilitators were identified. These were organized sequentially to provide considerations for AI development, implementation, and the overall structure needed to facilitate adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature review revealed that trust is a significant catalyst of adoption, and it was found to be impacted by several barriers identified in this review. A governance structure can be a key facilitator, among others, in ensuring all the elements identified as barriers are addressed appropriately. The findings demonstrate that the implementation of AI in health care is still, in many ways, dependent on the establishment of regulatory and legal frameworks. Further research into a combination of governance and implementation frameworks, models, or theories to enhance trust that would specifically enable adoption is needed to provide the necessary guidance to those translating AI research into practice. Future research could also be expanded to include attempts at understanding patients' perspectives on complex, high-risk AI use cases and how the use of AI applications affects clinical practice and patient care, including sociotechnical considerations, as more algorithms are implemented in actual clinical environments.

Women's attitudes and perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in the assessment of screening mammograms

PURPOSE

To investigate attitudes and perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the assessment of screening mammograms among women invited to BreastScreen Norway.

METHOD

An anonymous survey was sent to all women invited to BreastScreen Norway during the study period, October 10, 2022, to December 25, 2022 (n = 84,543). Questions were answered on a 10-point Likert scale and as multiple-choice, addressing knowledge of AI, willingness to participate in AI studies, information needs, confidence in AI results and AI assisted reading strategies, and thoughts on concerns and benefits of AI in mammography screening. Analyses were performed using χ2 and logistic regression tests.

RESULTS

General knowledge of AI was reported as extensive by 11.0% of the 8,355 respondents. Respondents were willing to participate in studies using AI either for decision support (64.0%) or triaging (54.9%). Being informed about use of AI-assisted image assessment was considered important, and a reading strategy of AI in combination with one radiologist preferred. Having extensive knowledge of AI was associated with willingness to participate in AI studies (decision support; odds ratio [OR]: 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.1-6.4, and triaging; OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.8-4.0) and trust in AI's independent assessment (OR: 6.8, 95% CI: 5.7, 8.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Women invited to BreastScreen Norway had a positive attitude towards the use of AI in image assessment, given that human readers are still involved. Targeted information and increased public knowledge of AI could help achieve high participation in AI studies and successful implementation of AI in mammography screening.