Aytekin Oto

Emadeldeen Hamdan, Gorkem Durak, Muhammed Enes Tasci et al.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is vital for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. While advanced techniques such as Hybrid Multi-dimensional MRI (HM-MRI) have enhanced diagnostic capabilities, the significant need remains for robust, automated Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based detection methods. In this study, we combine quantitative HM-MRI of tissue composition with an AI-based neural network. We propose the Hadamard-Bias Network plus ResNet18 (HBR-Net-18), a two-stage AI framework for PCa detection. In the first stage, a Hadamard U-Net-based algorithm suppresses intensity inhomogeneities (bias fields) across six parametric HM-MRI maps generated via a Physics-Informed Autoencoder (PIA). In the second stage, a Residual Network (ResNet-18) performs patch-level classification. The framework utilizes overlapping 11-by-11 patches, incorporating both 2D intra-slice and 3D inter-slice (adjacent-slice) information to improve spatial consistency. Our experimental results demonstrate that HB-Net achieves balanced sensitivity and specificity, significantly outperforming conventional radiomics-based approaches and baseline CNN models, highlighting its potential for clinical deployment.

Chacha Chen, Han Liu, Jiamin Yang et al.

Despite the growing interest in human-AI decision making, experimental studies with domain experts remain rare, largely due to the complexity of working with domain experts and the challenges in setting up realistic experiments. In this work, we conduct an in-depth collaboration with radiologists in prostate cancer diagnosis based on MRI images. Building on existing tools for teaching prostate cancer diagnosis, we develop an interface and conduct two experiments to study how AI assistance and performance feedback shape the decision making of domain experts. In Study 1, clinicians were asked to provide an initial diagnosis (human), then view the AI's prediction, and subsequently finalize their decision (human-AI team). In Study 2 (after a memory wash-out period), the same participants first received aggregated performance statistics from Study 1, specifically their own performance, the AI's performance, and their human-AI team performance, and then directly viewed the AI's prediction before making their diagnosis (i.e., no independent initial diagnosis). These two workflows represent realistic ways that clinical AI tools might be used in practice, where the second study simulates a scenario where doctors can adjust their reliance and trust on AI based on prior performance feedback. Our findings show that, while human-AI teams consistently outperform humans alone, they still underperform the AI due to under-reliance, similar to prior studies with crowdworkers. Providing clinicians with performance feedback did not significantly improve the performance of human-AI teams, although showing AI decisions in advance nudges people to follow AI more. Meanwhile, we observe that the ensemble of human-AI teams can outperform AI alone, suggesting promising directions for human-AI collaboration.