Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A universal translator for AI scores: Providing context using error

View ORCID ProfileMaggie Chung, View ORCID ProfileMicheal H. Bernstein, View ORCID ProfileAdam Yala, View ORCID ProfileGrayson L. Baird
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.28.25323066
Maggie Chung
1Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Maggie Chung
Micheal H. Bernstein
2Brown Radiology Human Factors Lab, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, and Brown University Health, Providence, RI
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Micheal H. Bernstein
Adam Yala
3Computational Precision Health, University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Francisco, CA
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Adam Yala
Grayson L. Baird
2Brown Radiology Human Factors Lab, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, and Brown University Health, Providence, RI
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Grayson L. Baird
  • For correspondence: grayson_baird{at}brown.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) programs in radiology typically provide a numeric score for each case that correlates with the underlying pathology. However, these scores are not readily interpretable by themselves. To address this, we propose improving score interpretability by providing the False Discovery Rate (FDR) and False Omission Rate (FOR) corresponding with each score threshold. Using an open-source AI program for breast cancer, we estimated FDR and FOR across a range of AI scores using data from 130,712 digital screening mammograms, of which 907 were positive and 129,805 were negative. FDR and FOR ranged from 99.27% and 0.03%, respectively, at the low end of the score distribution to 60.98% and 0.65%, respectively, at the high end of the distribution. Providing these error rates alongside AI scores allows clinicians to consider the balance of trade-offs between false positive and false negative interpretations.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

Adam Yala is supported by the E.P. Evans Foundation and Breast Cancer Research Foundation awards. Maggie Chung is supported by the Radiological Society of North America Research Scholar Grant. Funders did not directly influence or partake in this study.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board gave ethical approval for this work

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Data generated or analyzed during the study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted March 04, 2025.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A universal translator for AI scores: Providing context using error
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A universal translator for AI scores: Providing context using error
Maggie Chung, Micheal H. Bernstein, Adam Yala, Grayson L. Baird
medRxiv 2025.02.28.25323066; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.28.25323066
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A universal translator for AI scores: Providing context using error
Maggie Chung, Micheal H. Bernstein, Adam Yala, Grayson L. Baird
medRxiv 2025.02.28.25323066; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.28.25323066

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Radiology and Imaging
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (434)
  • Allergy and Immunology (758)
  • Anesthesia (222)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (3311)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (366)
  • Dermatology (282)
  • Emergency Medicine (479)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1175)
  • Epidemiology (13396)
  • Forensic Medicine (19)
  • Gastroenterology (900)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5171)
  • Geriatric Medicine (482)
  • Health Economics (785)
  • Health Informatics (3283)
  • Health Policy (1144)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1198)
  • Hematology (432)
  • HIV/AIDS (1022)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14649)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (914)
  • Medical Education (478)
  • Medical Ethics (128)
  • Nephrology (525)
  • Neurology (4946)
  • Nursing (262)
  • Nutrition (734)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (888)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (796)
  • Oncology (2528)
  • Ophthalmology (730)
  • Orthopedics (284)
  • Otolaryngology (347)
  • Pain Medicine (323)
  • Palliative Medicine (90)
  • Pathology (546)
  • Pediatrics (1304)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (551)
  • Primary Care Research (558)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (4223)
  • Public and Global Health (7524)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1713)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1017)
  • Respiratory Medicine (981)
  • Rheumatology (480)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (500)
  • Sports Medicine (425)
  • Surgery (551)
  • Toxicology (72)
  • Transplantation (237)
  • Urology (206)