Search alternatives:
significant agreement » significant improvement (Expand Search), significant advancement (Expand Search), significant enrichment (Expand Search)
agreement increases » treatment increases (Expand Search), investment increases (Expand Search)
significant shape » significant change (Expand Search), significant gap (Expand Search), significant side (Expand Search)
shape decrease » shape increases (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), step decrease (Expand Search)
significant agreement » significant improvement (Expand Search), significant advancement (Expand Search), significant enrichment (Expand Search)
agreement increases » treatment increases (Expand Search), investment increases (Expand Search)
significant shape » significant change (Expand Search), significant gap (Expand Search), significant side (Expand Search)
shape decrease » shape increases (Expand Search), small decrease (Expand Search), step decrease (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
Participant agreement with heatmap feedback.
Published 2024“…Participants disagreed with the AI heatmaps for the abnormal examinations 45.8% of the time and agreed with binary feedback on 86.7% of examinations (26/30 presentations).’Only two participants indicated that they would decision switch in response to all AI feedback (GradCAM and binary) (0.7%, n = 2) across all datasets. 22.2% (n = 32) of participants agreed with the localisation of pathology on the heatmap. The level of agreement with the GradCAM and binary diagnosis was found to be correlated with trust (GradCAM:—.515;—.584, significant large negative correlation at 0.01 level (p = < .01 and—.309;—.369, significant medium negative correlation at .01 level (p = < .01) for GradCAM and binary diagnosis respectively). …”
-
17
-
18
-
19
-
20