» Articles » PMID: 37758250

Artificial Intelligence-based Image Analysis in Clinical Testing: Lessons from Cervical Cancer Screening

Abstract

Novel screening and diagnostic tests based on artificial intelligence (AI) image recognition algorithms are proliferating. Some initial reports claim outstanding accuracy followed by disappointing lack of confirmation, including our own early work on cervical screening. This is a presentation of lessons learned, organized as a conceptual step-by-step approach to bridge the gap between the creation of an AI algorithm and clinical efficacy. The first fundamental principle is specifying rigorously what the algorithm is designed to identify and what the test is intended to measure (eg, screening, diagnostic, or prognostic). Second, designing the AI algorithm to minimize the most clinically important errors. For example, many equivocal cervical images cannot yet be labeled because the borderline between cases and controls is blurred. To avoid a misclassified case-control dichotomy, we have isolated the equivocal cases and formally included an intermediate, indeterminate class (severity order of classes: case>indeterminate>control). The third principle is evaluating AI algorithms like any other test, using clinical epidemiologic criteria. Repeatability of the algorithm at the borderline, for indeterminate images, has proven extremely informative. Distinguishing between internal and external validation is also essential. Linking the AI algorithm results to clinical risk estimation is the fourth principle. Absolute risk (not relative) is the critical metric for translating a test result into clinical use. Finally, generating risk-based guidelines for clinical use that match local resources and priorities is the last principle in our approach. We are particularly interested in applications to lower-resource settings to address health disparities. We note that similar principles apply to other domains of AI-based image analysis for medical diagnostic testing.

Citing Articles

Generalizable deep neural networks for image quality classification of cervical images.

Ahmed S, Befano B, Egemen D, Rodriguez A, Desai K, Jeronimo J Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):6312.

PMID: 39984572 PMC: 11845747. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-90024-0.


Design and validation of ultra-compact metamaterial-based biosensor for non-invasive cervical cancer diagnosis in terahertz regime.

Hamza M, Islam M, Lavadiya S, Ud Din I, Sanches B, Koziel S PLoS One. 2025; 20(2):e0311431.

PMID: 39899558 PMC: 11790148. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311431.


Prospective Applications of Artificial Intelligence In Fetal Medicine: A Scoping Review of Recent Updates.

Miskeen E, Alfaifi J, Alhuian D, Alghamdi M, Alharthi M, Alshahrani N Int J Gen Med. 2025; 18():237-245.

PMID: 39834911 PMC: 11745059. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S490261.


Automated Image Clarity Detection for the Improvement of Colposcopy Imaging with Multiple Devices.

Ekem L, Skerrett E, Huchko M, Ramanujam N Biomed Signal Process Control. 2024; 100(Pt B).

PMID: 39669100 PMC: 11633643. DOI: 10.1016/j.bspc.2024.106948.


The Future of Cervical Cancer Screening.

Goldstein A, Gersh M, Skovronsky G, Moss C Int J Womens Health. 2024; 16:1715-1731.

PMID: 39464249 PMC: 11512781. DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S474571.


References
1.
Katki H, Kinney W, Fetterman B, Lorey T, Poitras N, Cheung L . Cervical cancer risk for women undergoing concurrent testing for human papillomavirus and cervical cytology: a population-based study in routine clinical practice. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(7):663-72. PMC: 3272857. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70145-0. View

2.
Desai K, Befano B, Xue Z, Kelly H, Campos N, Egemen D . The development of "automated visual evaluation" for cervical cancer screening: The promise and challenges in adapting deep-learning for clinical testing: Interdisciplinary principles of automated visual evaluation in cervical screening. Int J Cancer. 2021; 150(5):741-752. PMC: 8732320. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33879. View

3.
Egemen D, Cheung L, Chen X, Demarco M, Perkins R, Kinney W . Risk Estimates Supporting the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020; 24(2):132-143. PMC: 7147417. DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000529. View

4.
Perkins R, Smith D, Jeronimo J, Campos N, Gage J, Hansen N . Use of risk-based cervical screening programs in resource-limited settings. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023; 84:102369. DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2023.102369. View

5.
Gidwani M, Chang K, Patel J, Hoebel K, Ahmed S, Singh P . Inconsistent Partitioning and Unproductive Feature Associations Yield Idealized Radiomic Models. Radiology. 2022; 307(1):e220715. PMC: 10068883. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.220715. View