Bridging the experience gap in prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using artificial intelligence: A prospective multi-reader comparison study on inter-reader agreement in PI-RADS v2.1, image quality and reporting time between novice and expert readers

Radiologists' perspectives on the workflow integration of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection system: A qualitative study

In healthcare, artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to improve work processes, yet most research focuses on the technical features of AI rather than its real-world clinical implementation. To evaluate the implementation process of an AI-based computer-aided detection system (AI-CAD) for prostate MRI readings, we interviewed German radiologists in a pre-post design. We embedded our findings in the Model of Workflow Integration and the Technology Acceptance Model to analyze workflow effects, facilitators, and barriers. The most prominent barriers were: (i) a time delay in the work process, (ii) additional work steps to be taken, and (iii) an unstable performance of the AI-CAD. Most frequently named facilitators were (i) good self-organization, and (ii) good usability of the software. Our results underline the importance of a holistic approach to AI implementation considering the sociotechnical work system and provide valuable insights into key factors of the successful adoption of AI technologies in work systems.

Prospective effects of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection system for prostate imaging on routine workflow and radiologists' outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to alleviate the negative consequences of rising case numbers for radiologists. Currently, systematic evaluations of the impact of AI solutions in real-world radiological practice are missing. Our study addresses this gap by investigating the impact of the clinical implementation of an AI-based computer-aided detection system (CAD) for prostate MRI reading on clinicians' workflow, workflow throughput times, workload, and stress.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CAD was newly implemented into radiology workflow and accompanied by a prospective pre-post study design. We assessed prostate MRI case readings using standardized work observations and questionnaires. The observation period was three months each in a single department. Workflow throughput times, PI-RADS score, CAD usage and radiologists' self-reported workload and stress were recorded. Linear mixed models were employed for effect identification.

RESULTS

In data analyses, 91 observed case readings (pre: 50, post: 41) were included. Variation of routine workflow was observed following CAD implementation. A non-significant increase in overall workflow throughput time was associated with CAD implementation (mean 16.99 ± 6.21 vs 18.77 ± 9.69 min, p = .51), along with an increase in diagnostic reading time for high suspicion cases (mean 15.73 ± 4.99 vs 23.07 ± 8.75 min, p = .02). Changes in radiologists' self-reported workload or stress were not found.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an AI-based detection aid was associated with lower standardization and no effects over time on radiologists' workload or stress. Expectations of AI decreasing the workload of radiologists were not confirmed by our real-world study.

PRE-REGISTRATION

German register for clinical trials https://drks.de/; DRKS00027391.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.