The stochastic digital human is now enrolling for in silico imaging trials -- Methods and tools for generating digital cohorts

Randomized clinical trials, while often viewed as the highest evidentiary bar by which to judge the quality of a medical intervention, are far from perfect. In silico imaging trials are computational studies that seek to ascertain the performance of a medical device by collecting this information entirely via computer simulations. The benefits of in silico trials for evaluating new technology include significant resource and time savings, minimization of subject risk, the ability to study devices that are not achievable in the physical world, allow for the rapid and effective investigation of new technologies and ensure representation from all relevant subgroups. To conduct in silico trials, digital representations of humans are needed. We review the latest developments in methods and tools for obtaining digital humans for in silico imaging studies. First, we introduce terminology and a classification of digital human models. Second, we survey available methodologies for generating digital humans with healthy and diseased status and examine briefly the role of augmentation methods. Finally, we discuss the trade-offs of four approaches for sampling digital cohorts and the associated potential for study bias with selecting specific patient distributions

Wave vision

The basic applications of radio waves are communication an

Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms

We have developed a computer-aided detection (CAD) system to detect clustered microcalcifications automatically on full-field digital mammograms (FFDMs) and a CAD system for screen-film mammograms (SFMs). The two systems used the same computer vision algorithms but their false positive (FP) classifiers were trained separately with sample images of each modality. In this study, we compared the performance of the CAD systems for detection of clustered microcalcifications on pairs of FFDM and SFM obtained from the same patient. For case-based performance evaluation, the FFDM CAD system achieved detection sensitivities of 70%, 80% and 90% at an average FP cluster rate of 0.07, 0.16 and 0.63 per image, compared with an average FP cluster rate of 0.15, 0.38 and 2.02 per image for the SFM CAD system. The difference was statistically significant with the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (AFROC) analysis. When evaluated on data sets negative for microcalcification clusters, the average FP cluster rates of the FFDM CAD system were 0.04, 0.11 and 0.33 per image at detection sensitivity level of 70%, 80% and 90% compared with an average FP cluster rate of 0.08, 0.14 and 0.50 per image for the SFM CAD system. When evaluated for malignant cases only, the difference of the performance of the two CAD systems was not statistically significant with AFROC analysis.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58099/2/pmb7_4_008.pd

Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer?

Background Because screening mammography for breast cancer is less effective for premenopausal women, we investigated the feasibility of a diagnostic blood test using serum proteins. Methods This study used a set of 98 serum proteins and chose diagnostically relevant subsets via various feature-selection techniques. Because of significant noise in the data set, we applied iterated Bayesian model averaging to account for model selection uncertainty and to improve generalization performance. We assessed generalization performance using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results The classifiers were able to distinguish normal tissue from breast cancer with a classification performance of AUC = 0.82 ± 0.04 with the proteins MIF, MMP-9, and MPO. The classifiers distinguished normal tissue from benign lesions similarly at AUC = 0.80 ± 0.05. However, the serum proteins of benign and malignant lesions were indistinguishable (AUC = 0.55 ± 0.06). The classification tasks of normal vs. cancer and normal vs. benign selected the same top feature: MIF, which suggests that the biomarkers indicated inflammatory response rather than cancer. Conclusion Overall, the selected serum proteins showed moderate ability for detecting lesions. However, they are probably more indicative of secondary effects such as inflammation rather than specific for malignancy.United States. Dept. of Defense. Breast Cancer Research Program (Grant No. W81XWH-05-1-0292)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (R01 CA-112437-01)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (NIH CA 84955

Evaluation of Combined Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessment to Interpret Screening Mammograms

Importance: Mammography screening currently relies on subjective human interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) advances could be used to increase mammography screening accuracy by reducing missed cancers and false positives. Objective: To evaluate whether AI can overcome human mammography interpretation limitations with a rigorous, unbiased evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic accuracy study conducted between September 2016 and November 2017, an international, crowdsourced challenge was hosted to foster AI algorithm development focused on interpreting screening mammography. More than 1100 participants comprising 126 teams from 44 countries participated. Analysis began November 18, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measurements: Algorithms used images alone (challenge 1) or combined images, previous examinations (if available), and clinical and demographic risk factor data (challenge 2) and output a score that translated to cancer yes/no within 12 months. Algorithm accuracy for breast cancer detection was evaluated using area under the curve and algorithm specificity compared with radiologists' specificity with radiologists' sensitivity set at 85.9% (United States) and 83.9% (Sweden). An ensemble method aggregating top-performing AI algorithms and radiologists' recall assessment was developed and evaluated. Results: Overall, 144 231 screening mammograms from 85 580 US women (952 cancer positive ≤12 months from screening) were used for algorithm training and validation. A second independent validation cohort included 166 578 examinations from 68 008 Swedish women (780 cancer positive). The top-performing algorithm achieved an area under the curve of 0.858 (United States) and 0.903 (Sweden) and 66.2% (United States) and 81.2% (Sweden) specificity at the radiologists' sensitivity, lower than community-practice radiologists' specificity of 90.5% (United States) and 98.5% (Sweden). Combining top-performing algorithms and US radiologist assessments resulted in a higher area under the curve of 0.942 and achieved a significantly improved specificity (92.0%) at the same sensitivity. Conclusions and Relevance: While no single AI algorithm outperformed radiologists, an ensemble of AI algorithms combined with radiologist assessment in a single-reader screening environment improved overall accuracy. This study underscores the potential of using machine learning methods for enhancing mammography screening interpretation

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)