Category: Artificial Intelligence

Economic Barriers to AI

Posted on by Brian Casey

A new article in JACR highlights the economic barriers that are limiting wider adoption of AI in healthcare in the US. The study paints a picture of how the complex nature of Medicare reimbursement puts the country at risk of falling behind other nations in the quest to implement healthcare AI on a national scale. 

The success of any new medical technology in the US has always been linked to whether physicians can get reimbursed for using it. But there are a variety of paths to reimbursement in the Medicare system, each one with its own rules and idiosyncrasies. 

The establishment of the NTAP program was thought to be a milestone in paying for AI for inpatients, for example, but the JACR authors note that NTAP payments are time-limited for no more than three years. A variety of other factors are limiting AI reimbursement, including … 

  • All of the AI payments approved under the NTAP program have expired, and as such no AI algorithm is being reimbursed under NTAP 
  • Budget-neutral requirements in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule mean that AI reimbursement is often a zero-sum game. Payments made for one service (such as AI) must be offset by reductions for something else 
  • Only one imaging AI algorithm has successfully navigated CMS to achieve Category I reimbursement in the Physician Fee Schedule, starting in 2024 for fractional flow reserve (FFR) analysis

Standing in stark contrast to the Medicare system is the NHS in the UK, where regulators see AI as an invaluable tool to address chronic workforce shortages in radiology and are taking aggressive action to promote its adoption. Not only has NHS announced a £21M fund to fuel AI adoption, but it is mulling the implementation of a national platform to enable AI algorithms to be accessed within standard radiology workflow. 

The Takeaway

The JACR article illustrates how Medicare’s Byzantine reimbursement structure puts barriers in the path of wider AI adoption. Although there have been some reimbursement victories such as NTAP, these have been temporary, and the fact that only one radiology AI algorithm has achieved a Category I CPT code must be a sobering thought to AI proponents.

How Vendors Sell AI

Posted on by Brian Casey

Better patient care is the main selling point used by AI vendors when marketing neuroimaging algorithms, followed closely by time savings. Farther down the list of benefits are lower costs and increased revenue for providers. 

So says a new analysis in JACR that takes a close look at how FDA-cleared neuroimaging AI algorithms are marketed by vendors. It also includes several warning signs for both AI developers and clinicians.

AI is the most exciting technology to arrive in healthcare in decades, but questions percolate on whether AI developers are overhyping the technology. In the new analysis, researchers focused on marketing claims made for 59 AI neuroimaging algorithms cleared by the FDA from 2008 to 2022. Researchers analyzed FDA summaries and vendor websites, finding:

  • For 69% of algorithms, vendors highlighted an improvement in quality of patient care, while time savings for clinicians were touted for 44%. Only 16% of algorithms were promoted as lowering costs, while just 11% were positioned as increasing revenue
  • 50% of cleared neuroimaging algorithms were related to detection or quantification of stroke; of these, 41% were for intracranial hemorrhage, 31% for stroke brain perfusion, and 24% for detection of large vessel occlusion 
  • 41% of the algorithms were intended for use with non-contrast CT scans, 36% with MRI, 15% with CT perfusion, 14% with CT angiography, and the rest with MR perfusion and PET
  • 90% of the algorithms studied were cleared in the last five years, and 42% since last year

The researchers further noted two caveats in AI marketing: 

  • There is a lack of publicly available data to support vendor claims about the value of their algorithms. Better transparency is needed to create trust and clinician engagement.
  • The single-use-case nature of many AI algorithms raises questions about their economic viability. Many different algorithms would have to be implemented at a facility to ensure “a reasonable breadth of triage” for critical findings, and the financial burden of such integration is unclear.

The Takeaway

The new study offers intriguing insights into how AI algorithms are marketed by vendors, and how these efforts could be perceived by clinicians. The researchers note that financial pressure on AI developers may cause them to make “unintentional exaggerated claims” to recoup the cost of development; it is incumbent upon vendors to scrutinize their marketing activities to avoid overhyping AI technology.

Grading AI Report Quality

Posted on by Brian Casey

One of the most exciting new use cases for medical AI is in generating radiology reports. But how can you tell whether the quality of a report generated by an AI algorithm is comparable to that of a radiologist?

In a new study in Patterns, researchers propose a technical framework for automatically grading the output of AI-generated radiology reports, with the ultimate goal of producing AI-generated reports that are indistinguishable from those of radiologists. 

Most radiology AI applications so far have focused on developing algorithms to identify individual pathologies on imaging exams. 

  • While this is useful, helping radiologists streamline the production of their main output – the radiology report – could have a far greater impact on their productivity and efficiency. 

But existing tools for measuring the quality of AI-generated narrative reports are limited and don’t match up well with radiologists’ evaluations. 

  • To improve that situation, the researchers applied several existing automated metrics for analyzing report quality and compared them to the scores of radiologists, seeking to better understand AI’s weaknesses. 

Not surprisingly, the automated metrics fell short in several ways, including false prediction of findings, omitting findings, and incorrectly locating and predicting the severity of findings. 

  • These shortcomings point out the need for better scoring systems for gauging AI performance. 

The researchers therefore proposed a new metric for grading AI-generated report quality, called RadGraph F1, and a new methodology, RadCliQ, to predict how well an AI report would measure up to radiologist scrutiny. 

  • RadGraph F1 and RadCliQ could be used in future research on AI-generated radiology reports, and to that end the researchers have made the code for both metrics available as open source.

Ultimately, the researchers see the construction of generalist medical AI models that could perform multiple complex tasks, such as conversing with radiologists and physicians about medical images. 

  • Another use case could be applications that are able to explain imaging findings to patients in everyday language. 

The Takeaway

It’s a complex and detailed paper, but the new study is important because it outlines the metrics that can be used to teach machines how to generate better radiology reports. Given the imperative to improve radiologist productivity in the face of rising imaging volume and workforce shortages, this could be one more step on the quest for the Holy Grail of AI in radiology.

Does ‘Automation Neglect’ Limit AI’s Impact?

Posted on by Brian Casey

Radiologists ignored AI suggestions in a new study because of “automation neglect,” a phenomenon in which humans are less likely to trust algorithmic recommendations. The findings raise questions about whether AI really should be used as a collaborative tool by radiologists. 

How radiologists use AI predictions has become a growing area of research as AI moves into the clinical realm. Most use cases see radiologists employing AI in a collaborative role as a decision-making aid when reviewing cases. 

But is that really the best way to use AI? In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, researchers from Harvard Medical School and MIT explored the effectiveness of radiologist performance when assisted by AI, in particular its impact on diagnostic quality.

They ran an experiment in which they manipulated radiologist access to predictions from the CheXpert AI algorithm for 324 chest X-ray cases, and then analyzed the results. They also assessed radiologist performance with and without clinical context. The 180 radiologists participating in the study were recruited from US teleradiology firms, as well as from a health network in Vietnam. 

It was expected that AI would boost radiologist performance, but instead accuracy remained unchanged:

  • AI predictions were more accurate than two-thirds of the radiologists
  • Yet, AI assistance failed to improve the radiologists’ diagnostic accuracy, as readers underweighted AI findings by 30% compared to their own assessments
  • Radiologists took 4% longer to interpret cases when either AI or clinical context were added
  • Adding clinical context to cases had a bigger impact on radiologist performance than adding AI interpretations

The findings show automation neglect can be a “major barrier” to human-AI collaboration. Interestingly, the new article seems to run counter to a previous study finding that radiologists who received incorrect AI results were more likely to follow the algorithm’s suggestions – against their own judgment. 

The Takeaway

The authors themselves admit the new findings are “puzzling,” but they do have intriguing ramifications. In particular, the researchers suggest that there may be limitations to the collaborative model in which humans and AI work together to analyze cases. Instead, it may be more effective to assign AI exclusively to certain studies, while radiologists work without AI assistance on other cases.

Can You Believe the AI Hype?

Posted on by Brian Casey

Can you believe the hype when it comes to marketing claims made for AI software? Not always. A new review in JAMA Network Open suggests that marketing materials for one-fifth of FDA-cleared AI applications don’t agree with the language in their regulatory submissions. 

Interest in AI for healthcare has exploded, creating regulatory challenges for the FDA due to the technology’s novelty. This has left many AI developers guessing how they should comply with FDA rules, both before and after products get regulatory clearance.

This creates the possibility for discrepancies between products the FDA has cleared and how AI firms promote them. To investigate further, researchers from NYU Langone Health analyzed content from 510(k) clearance summaries and accompanying marketing materials for 119 AI- and machine learning (ML)-enabled devices cleared from November 2021 to March 2022. Their findings included:

  • Overall, AI/ML marketing language was consistent with 510(k) summaries for 80.67% of devices
  • Language was considered “discrepant” for 12.61% and “contentious” for 6.72% 
  • Most of the AI/ML devices surveyed (63.03%) were developed for radiology use; these had a slightly higher rate of consistency (82.67%) than the entire study sample

The authors provided several examples illustrating when AI/ML firms went astray. In one case labeled as “discrepant,” a developer touted the “cutting-edge AI and advanced robotics” in its software for measuring and displaying cerebral blood flow with ultrasound. But the product’s 510(k) summary never discussed AI capabilities, and the algorithm isn’t included on the FDA’s list of AI/ML-enabled devices.

In another case labeled as “contentious,” marketing materials for an ECG mapping software application mention that it includes computation modeling and is a smart device, but require users to request a pamphlet from the developer for more information.

The Takeaway 

So, can you believe the AI hype? This study shows that most of the time you can, with a consistency rate of 80.67% – not bad for a field as new as AI (a fact acknowledged in an invited commentary on the paper). But the study’s authors suggest that “any level of discrepancy is important to note for consumer safety.” And for a technology that already has trust issues, it’s probably best that developers not push the envelope when it comes to marketing.

H1 Radiology Recap

Posted on by Brian Casey

That’s a wrap for the first half of 2023. Below are the top stories in radiology for the past 6 months, as well as some tips on what to look for in the second half of the year.

  • Radiology Bounces Back – After several crushing years in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the first half brought welcome news to radiology on several fronts. The 2023 Match wrapped up with diagnostic radiology on top as the most popular medical specialty for medical students over the past 3 years. Radiology was one of the highest-compensated specialties in surveys from Medscape and Doximity, and even vendors got into the act, reporting higher revenue and earnings as supply chain delays cleared up. Will the momentum continue in the second half? 
  • Burnout Looms Large – Even as salaries grow, healthcare is grappling with increased physician burnout. Realization is growing that burnout is a systemic problem – tied to rising healthcare volumes – that defies self-care solutions. Congressional legislation would boost residency slots 5% a year for 7 years, but is even this enough? Alternatively, could IT tools like AI help offload medicine’s more mundane tasks and alleviate workloads? Both questions will be debated in the back half of 2023. 
  • In-Person Shows Are Back – The pandemic took a wrecking ball to the trade show calendar, but things began to return to normal in the first half of 2023. Both ECR and HIMSS held meetings that saw respectable attendance, following up on a successful RSNA 2022. By the time SIIM 2023 rolled around in early June, the pandemic was a distant memory as radiology focused on the value of being together. 

The Takeaway

As the second half of 2023 begins, all eyes will be on ChatGPT and whether a technology that’s mostly a curious novelty now can evolve into a useful clinical tool in the future. 

AI Reinvigorates SIIM 2023

Posted on by Brian Casey

AUSTIN – Before AI came along, the Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SIIM) seemed to be a conference in search of itself. SIIM (and before it, SCAR) built its reputation on education and training for radiology’s shift to digital image management. 

But what happens when the dog catches the truck? Radiology eventually fully adopted digital imaging, and that meant less need to teach people about technology they were already using every day.

Fast forward to the AI era, and SIIM seems to have found its new mission. Once again, radiology is faced with a transformative IT technology that few understand and even fewer know how to put into clinical practice. With its emphasis on education and networking, SIIM is a great forum to learn how to do both. 

That’s exemplified by the SIIM keynote address on Wednesday, by Ziad Obermeyer, MD, a physician and researcher in machine learning at UC Berkeley who has published important research on bias in machine learning. 

While not a radiologist, Obermeyer served up a fascinating talk on how AI should be designed and adopted to have maximum impact. His advice included:

  • Don’t design AI to perform the same tasks humans do already. Train algorithms to perform in ways that make up for the shortcomings of humans.
  • Training algorithms on medical knowledge from decades ago is likely to produce bias when today’s patient populations don’t match those of the past.
  • Access to high-quality data is key to algorithm development. Data should be considered a public good, but there is too much friction in getting it. 

To solve some of these challenges, Obermeyer is involved in two projects, Nightingale Open Science to connect researchers with health systems, and Dandelion Health, designed to help AI developers access clinical data they need to test their algorithms. 

The Takeaway 

The rise of AI – particularly generative AI models like ChatGPT –  has given SIIM a shot in the arm from a content perspective, and the return of in-person meetings plays to the conference’s strength as an intimate get-together where the networking and relationship-building is almost as important as the content. Please follow along with the proceedings of SIIM 2023 on our Twitter and LinkedIn pages. 

Mayo’s AI Model

Posted on by Brian Casey

SAN DIEGO – What’s behind the slow clinical adoption of artificial intelligence? That question permeated the discussion at this week’s AIMed Global Summit, an up-and-coming conference dedicated to AI in healthcare.

Running June 4-7, this week’s meeting saw hundreds of healthcare professionals gather in San Diego. Radiology figured prominently as the medical specialty with a lion’s share of the over 500 FDA-cleared AI algorithms available for clinical use.

But being available for use and actually being used are two different things. A common refrain at AIMed 2023 was slow clinical uptake of AI, a problem widely attributed to difficulties in deploying and implementing the technology. One speaker noted that less than 5% of practices are using AI today.

One way to spur AI adoption is the platform approach, in which AI apps are vetted by a single entity for inclusion in a marketplace from which clinicians can pick and choose what they want. 

The platform approach is gaining steam in radiology, but Mayo Clinic is rolling the platform concept out across its entire healthcare enterprise. First launched in 2019, Mayo Clinic Platform aims to help clinicians enjoy the benefits of AI without the implementation headache, according to Halim Abbas, senior director of AI at Mayo, who discussed Mayo’s progress on the platform at AIMed. 

The Mayo Clinic Platform has several main features:

  • Each medical specialty maintains its own internal AI R&D team with access to its own AI applications 
  • At the same time, Mayo operates a centralized AI operation that provides tools and services accessible across departments, such as data de-identification and harmonization, augmented data curation, and validation benchmarks
  • Clinical data is made available outside the -ologies, but the data is anonymized and secured, an approach Mayo calls “data behind glass”

Mayo Clinic Platform gives different -ologies some ownership of AI, but centralizes key functions and services to improve AI efficiency and smooth implementation. 

The Takeaway 

Mayo Clinic Platform offers an intriguing model for AI deployment. By removing AI’s implementation pain points, Mayo hopes to ramp up clinical utilization, and Mayo has the organizational heft and technical expertise to make it work (see below for news on Mayo’s new generative AI deal with Google Cloud). 

But can Mayo’s AI model be duplicated at smaller health systems and community providers that don’t have its IT resources? Maybe we’ll find out at AIMed 2024.

When AI Goes Wrong

Posted on by Brian Casey

What impact do incorrect AI results have on radiologist performance? That question was the focus of a new study in European Radiology in which radiologists who received incorrect AI results were more likely to make wrong decisions on patient follow-up – even though they would have been correct without AI’s help.

The accuracy of AI has become a major concern as deep learning models like ChatGPT become more powerful and come closer to routine use. There’s even a term – the “hallucination effect” – for when AI models veer off script to produce text that sounds plausible but in fact is incorrect.

While AI hallucinations may not be an issue in healthcare – yet – there is still concern about the impact that AI algorithms are having on clinicians, both in terms of diagnostic performance and workflow. 

To see what happens when AI goes wrong, researchers from Brown University sent 90 chest radiographs with “sham” AI results to six radiologists, with 50% of the studies positive for lung cancer. They employed different strategies for AI use, ranging from keeping the AI recommendations in the patient’s record to deleting them after the interpretation was made. Findings included:

  • When AI falsely called a true-pathology case “normal,” radiologists’ false-negative rates rose compared to when they didn’t use AI (20.7-33.0% depending on AI use strategy vs. 2.7%)
  • AI calling a negative case “abnormal” boosted radiologists’ false-positive rates compared to without AI (80.5-86.0% vs. 51.4%)
  • Not surprisingly, when AI calls were correct, radiologists were more accurate with AI than without, with increases in both true-positive rates (94.7-97.8% vs. 88.3%) and true-negative rates (89.7-90.7% vs. 77.3%)

Fortunately, the researchers offered suggestions on how to mitigate the impact of incorrect AI. Radiologists had fewer false negatives when AI provided a box around the region of suspicion, a phenomenon the researchers said could be related to AI helping radiologists focus. 

Also, radiologists’ false positives were higher when AI results were retained in the patient record versus when they were deleted. Researchers said this was evidence that radiologists were less likely to disagree with AI if there was a record of the disagreement occurring. 

The Takeaway 
As AI becomes more widespread clinically, studies like this will become increasingly important in shaping how the technology is used in the real world, and add to previous research on AI’s impact. Awareness that AI is imperfect – and strategies that take that awareness into account – will become key to any AI implementation.

AI Investment Shift

Posted on by Brian Casey

VC investment in the AI medical imaging sector has shifted notably in the last couple years, says a new report from UK market intelligence firm Signify Research. The report offers a fascinating look at an industry where almost $5B has been raised since 2015. 

VC investment in the AI medical imaging sector has shifted in the last couple years, with money moving to later-stage companies.

Total Funding Value Drops – Both investors and AI independent software vendors (ISVs) have noticed reduced funding activity, and that’s reflected in the Signify numbers. VC funding of imaging AI firms fell 32% in 2022, to $750.4M, down from a peak of $1.1B in 2021.

Deal Volume Declines – The number of deals getting done has also fallen, to 42 deals in 2022, off 30% compared to 60 in 2021. In imaging AI’s peak year, 2020, 95 funding deals were completed. 

VC Appetite Remains Strong – Despite the declines, VCs still have a strong appetite for radiology AI, but funding has shifted from smaller early-stage deals to larger, late-stage investments. 

HeartFlow Deal Tips Scales – The average deal size has spiked this year to date, to $27.6M, compared to $17.9M in 2022, $18M in 2021, and $7.9M in 2020. Much of the higher 2023 number is driven by HeartFlow’s huge $215M funding round in April; Signify analyst Sanjay Parekh, PhD, told The Imaging Wire he expects the average deal value to fall to $18M by year’s end.

The Rich Get Richer – Much of the funding has concentrated in a dozen or so AI companies that have raised over $100M. Big winners include HeartFlow (over $650M), and Cleerly, Shukun Technology, and Viz.ai (over $250M). Signify’s $100M club is rounded out by Aidoc, Cathworks, Keya Medical, Deepwise Shenrui, Imagen Technologies, Perspectum, Lunit, and Annalise.ai.

US and China Dominate – On a regional basis, VC funding is going to companies in the US (almost $2B) and China ($1.1B). Following them are Israel ($513M), the UK ($310M), and South Korea ($255M).  

The Takeaway 

Signify’s report shows the continuation of trends seen in previous years that point to a maturing market for medical imaging AI. As with any such market, winners and losers are emerging, and VCs are clearly being selective about choosing which horses to put their money on.

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Imaging Wire team

You're all set!