IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v13y2022i1d10.1038_s41467-022-34945-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating diagnostic uncertainty in artificial intelligence assisted pathology using conformal prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik Olsson

    (Karolinska Institutet)

  • Kimmo Kartasalo

    (Karolinska Institutet)

  • Nita Mulliqi

    (Karolinska Institutet)

  • Marco Capuccini

    (Uppsala University)

  • Pekka Ruusuvuori

    (University of Turku
    Tampere University)

  • Hemamali Samaratunga

    (Aquesta Uropathology and University of Queensland)

  • Brett Delahunt

    (University of Otago)

  • Cecilia Lindskog

    (Uppsala University)

  • Emiel A. M. Janssen

    (Stavanger University Hospital
    University of Stavanger)

  • Anders Blilie

    (Stavanger University Hospital
    University of Stavanger)

  • Lars Egevad

    (Karolinska Institutet)

  • Ola Spjuth

    (Uppsala University)

  • Martin Eklund

    (Karolinska Institutet)

Abstract

Unreliable predictions can occur when an artificial intelligence (AI) system is presented with data it has not been exposed to during training. We demonstrate the use of conformal prediction to detect unreliable predictions, using histopathological diagnosis and grading of prostate biopsies as example. We digitized 7788 prostate biopsies from 1192 men in the STHLM3 diagnostic study, used for training, and 3059 biopsies from 676 men used for testing. With conformal prediction, 1 in 794 (0.1%) predictions is incorrect for cancer diagnosis (compared to 14 errors [2%] without conformal prediction) while 175 (22%) of the predictions are flagged as unreliable when the AI-system is presented with new data from the same lab and scanner that it was trained on. Conformal prediction could with small samples (N = 49 for external scanner, N = 10 for external lab and scanner, and N = 12 for external lab, scanner and pathology assessment) detect systematic differences in external data leading to worse predictive performance. The AI-system with conformal prediction commits 3 (2%) errors for cancer detection in cases of atypical prostate tissue compared to 44 (25%) without conformal prediction, while the system flags 143 (80%) unreliable predictions. We conclude that conformal prediction can increase patient safety of AI-systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik Olsson & Kimmo Kartasalo & Nita Mulliqi & Marco Capuccini & Pekka Ruusuvuori & Hemamali Samaratunga & Brett Delahunt & Cecilia Lindskog & Emiel A. M. Janssen & Anders Blilie & Lars Egevad & Ola, 2022. "Estimating diagnostic uncertainty in artificial intelligence assisted pathology using conformal prediction," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-022-34945-8
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-34945-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34945-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-022-34945-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meng Wang & Tian Lin & Lianyu Wang & Aidi Lin & Ke Zou & Xinxing Xu & Yi Zhou & Yuanyuan Peng & Qingquan Meng & Yiming Qian & Guoyao Deng & Zhiqun Wu & Junhong Chen & Jianhong Lin & Mingzhi Zhang & We, 2023. "Uncertainty-inspired open set learning for retinal anomaly identification," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:13:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-022-34945-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.