| Title |
The cytopathologist's role in developing and evaluating artificial intelligence in cytopathology practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cytopathology, February 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1111/cyt.12799 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ewen D. McAlpine, Pamela Michelow |
| Abstract |
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have the potential to transform cytopathology practice and it is important for cytopathologists to embrace this and place themselves at the forefront of implementing these technologies in cytopathology. This review illustrates an archetypal AI workflow from project conception to implementation in a diagnostic setting and illustrates the cytopathologist's role and level of involvement at each stage of the process. Cytopathologists need to develop and maintain a basic understanding of AI, drive decisions regarding the development and implementation of AI in cytopathology, participate in the generation of datasets used to train and evaluate AI algorithms, understand how the performance of these algorithms is assessed, participate in the validation of these algorithms (either at a regulatory level or in the laboratory setting) and ensure continuous quality assurance of algorithms deployed in a diagnostic setting. In addition, cytopathologists should ensure that these algorithms are developed, trained, tested and deployed in an ethical manner. Cytopathologists need to become informed consumers of these AI algorithms by understanding their workings and limitations, how their performance is assessed and how to validate and verify their output in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 23% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,356,957
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from Cytopathology
#115
of 731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,635
of 360,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cytopathology
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 731 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.