Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!

Abstract Good practices in artificial intelligence (AI) model validation are key for achieving trustworthy AI. Within the cancer imaging domain, attracting the attention of clinical and technical AI enthusiasts, this work discusses current gaps in AI validation strategies, examining existing practic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ioanna Chouvarda, Sara Colantonio, Ana S. C. Verde, Ana Jimenez-Pastor, Leonor Cerdá-Alberich, Yannick Metz, Lithin Zacharias, Shereen Nabhani-Gebara, Maciej Bobowicz, Gianna Tsakou, Karim Lekadir, Manolis Tsiknakis, Luis Martí-Bonmati, Nikolaos Papanikolaou
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2025-01-01
Series:European Radiology Experimental
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00543-0
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832594949403574272
author Ioanna Chouvarda
Sara Colantonio
Ana S. C. Verde
Ana Jimenez-Pastor
Leonor Cerdá-Alberich
Yannick Metz
Lithin Zacharias
Shereen Nabhani-Gebara
Maciej Bobowicz
Gianna Tsakou
Karim Lekadir
Manolis Tsiknakis
Luis Martí-Bonmati
Nikolaos Papanikolaou
author_facet Ioanna Chouvarda
Sara Colantonio
Ana S. C. Verde
Ana Jimenez-Pastor
Leonor Cerdá-Alberich
Yannick Metz
Lithin Zacharias
Shereen Nabhani-Gebara
Maciej Bobowicz
Gianna Tsakou
Karim Lekadir
Manolis Tsiknakis
Luis Martí-Bonmati
Nikolaos Papanikolaou
author_sort Ioanna Chouvarda
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Good practices in artificial intelligence (AI) model validation are key for achieving trustworthy AI. Within the cancer imaging domain, attracting the attention of clinical and technical AI enthusiasts, this work discusses current gaps in AI validation strategies, examining existing practices that are common or variable across technical groups (TGs) and clinical groups (CGs). The work is based on a set of structured questions encompassing several AI validation topics, addressed to professionals working in AI for medical imaging. A total of 49 responses were obtained and analysed to identify trends and patterns. While TGs valued transparency and traceability the most, CGs pointed out the importance of explainability. Among the topics where TGs may benefit from further exposure are stability and robustness checks, and mitigation of fairness issues. On the other hand, CGs seemed more reluctant towards synthetic data for validation and would benefit from exposure to cross-validation techniques, or segmentation metrics. Topics emerging from the open questions were utility, capability, adoption and trustworthiness. These findings on current trends in AI validation strategies may guide the creation of guidelines necessary for training the next generation of professionals working with AI in healthcare and contribute to bridging any technical-clinical gap in AI validation. Relevance statement This study recognised current gaps in understanding and applying AI validation strategies in cancer imaging and helped promote trust and adoption for interdisciplinary teams of technical and clinical researchers. Key Points Clinical and technical researchers emphasise interpretability, external validation with diverse data, and bias awareness in AI validation for cancer imaging. In cancer imaging AI research, clinical researchers prioritise explainability, while technical researchers focus on transparency and traceability, and see potential in synthetic datasets. Researchers advocate for greater homogenisation of AI validation practices in cancer imaging. Graphical Abstract
format Article
id doaj-art-041704d8640a4525af12caf8c56f4cd8
institution Kabale University
issn 2509-9280
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher SpringerOpen
record_format Article
series European Radiology Experimental
spelling doaj-art-041704d8640a4525af12caf8c56f4cd82025-01-19T12:09:30ZengSpringerOpenEuropean Radiology Experimental2509-92802025-01-019111510.1186/s41747-024-00543-0Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!Ioanna Chouvarda0Sara Colantonio1Ana S. C. Verde2Ana Jimenez-Pastor3Leonor Cerdá-Alberich4Yannick Metz5Lithin Zacharias6Shereen Nabhani-Gebara7Maciej Bobowicz8Gianna Tsakou9Karim Lekadir10Manolis Tsiknakis11Luis Martí-Bonmati12Nikolaos Papanikolaou13School of Medicine, Aristotle University of ThessalonikiInstitute of Information Science and Technologies of the National Research Council of ItalyComputational Clinical Imaging Group (CCIG), Champalimaud Research, Champalimaud FoundationQuibim SLBiomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230), La Fe Health Research InstituteData Analysis and Visualization, University of KonstanzDepartment of Pharmacy, Kingston University LondonFaculty of Health, Science, Social Care & Education, Kingston University London2nd Department of Radiology, Medical University of GdanskResearch and Development Lab, Gruppo Maggioli Greek BranchDepartament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Lab (BCN-AIM), Universitat de BarcelonaComputational BioMedicine Laboratory (CBML), Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH)Biomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230), La Fe Health Research InstituteComputational Clinical Imaging Group (CCIG), Champalimaud Research, Champalimaud FoundationAbstract Good practices in artificial intelligence (AI) model validation are key for achieving trustworthy AI. Within the cancer imaging domain, attracting the attention of clinical and technical AI enthusiasts, this work discusses current gaps in AI validation strategies, examining existing practices that are common or variable across technical groups (TGs) and clinical groups (CGs). The work is based on a set of structured questions encompassing several AI validation topics, addressed to professionals working in AI for medical imaging. A total of 49 responses were obtained and analysed to identify trends and patterns. While TGs valued transparency and traceability the most, CGs pointed out the importance of explainability. Among the topics where TGs may benefit from further exposure are stability and robustness checks, and mitigation of fairness issues. On the other hand, CGs seemed more reluctant towards synthetic data for validation and would benefit from exposure to cross-validation techniques, or segmentation metrics. Topics emerging from the open questions were utility, capability, adoption and trustworthiness. These findings on current trends in AI validation strategies may guide the creation of guidelines necessary for training the next generation of professionals working with AI in healthcare and contribute to bridging any technical-clinical gap in AI validation. Relevance statement This study recognised current gaps in understanding and applying AI validation strategies in cancer imaging and helped promote trust and adoption for interdisciplinary teams of technical and clinical researchers. Key Points Clinical and technical researchers emphasise interpretability, external validation with diverse data, and bias awareness in AI validation for cancer imaging. In cancer imaging AI research, clinical researchers prioritise explainability, while technical researchers focus on transparency and traceability, and see potential in synthetic datasets. Researchers advocate for greater homogenisation of AI validation practices in cancer imaging. Graphical Abstracthttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00543-0Artificial intelligenceDiagnostic imagingNeoplasmsResearch designSurveys and questionnaires
spellingShingle Ioanna Chouvarda
Sara Colantonio
Ana S. C. Verde
Ana Jimenez-Pastor
Leonor Cerdá-Alberich
Yannick Metz
Lithin Zacharias
Shereen Nabhani-Gebara
Maciej Bobowicz
Gianna Tsakou
Karim Lekadir
Manolis Tsiknakis
Luis Martí-Bonmati
Nikolaos Papanikolaou
Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!
European Radiology Experimental
Artificial intelligence
Diagnostic imaging
Neoplasms
Research design
Surveys and questionnaires
title Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!
title_full Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!
title_fullStr Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!
title_full_unstemmed Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!
title_short Differences in technical and clinical perspectives on AI validation in cancer imaging: mind the gap!
title_sort differences in technical and clinical perspectives on ai validation in cancer imaging mind the gap
topic Artificial intelligence
Diagnostic imaging
Neoplasms
Research design
Surveys and questionnaires
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00543-0
work_keys_str_mv AT ioannachouvarda differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT saracolantonio differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT anascverde differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT anajimenezpastor differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT leonorcerdaalberich differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT yannickmetz differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT lithinzacharias differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT shereennabhanigebara differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT maciejbobowicz differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT giannatsakou differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT karimlekadir differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT manolistsiknakis differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT luismartibonmati differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap
AT nikolaospapanikolaou differencesintechnicalandclinicalperspectivesonaivalidationincancerimagingmindthegap