瑞典的一項研究顯示，人工智慧可以 “可靠地” 從醫學檢測圖像中識別出乳腺癌。來自瑞典隆德大學的研究人員發現，電腦輔助檢測能夠以與兩位放射科醫生一同評估篩查圖像 “相似的效率” 發現癌症。
There is growing interest in how AI could transform healthcare. The idea of using it to help with breast cancer screening is one of the major areas of interest.
人們對可以如何運用人工智慧來改造醫療保健服務的興趣日益濃厚。使用人工智慧幫助篩查乳腺癌的想法是人們感興趣的主要領域之一。
Previously, studies have shown benefit, and this latest research, led by a team at Lund University, adds to that by directly comparing the performance of human experts and AI head-to-head for the first time. It found AI could spot cancer at a similar rate to two radiologists and produce the same number of false positives – where a scan is incorrectly diagnosed as abnormal.
此前的研究已顯示出人工智慧在這方面有用處，而這項由瑞典隆德大學的團隊領頭的最新研究則通過首次直接對比人類專家與人工智慧的表現，進一步證明了這一點。該研究發現，人工智慧檢查出癌症的效率與兩位放射科醫生一同評估篩查圖像的效率相似，得出假陽性誤報的數量也一致，假陽性指檢測掃描被誤診為異常。
But the researchers will have to follow the trial participants for another two years to discover whether AI is better than humans and not missing cancers that should be picked up. The lead researcher, Dr Kristina Lang, said the findings certainly suggested AI could potentially have an important role to play.
但是研究人員必須再跟蹤試驗參與者兩年的時間，以發現人工智慧是否強過人類，並且不會遺漏本應被發現的癌症病例。首席研究員克里斯蒂娜·朗博士表示，這些研究發現無疑顯示出人工智慧有可能發揮重要作用。
UK experts say while AI could never replace radiologists, its use offered huge promise, as a radiologist armed with the data insight and accuracy of AI could be a formidable force in patient care.
英國的專家稱，儘管人工智慧永遠無法取代放射科醫生，但是它的運用提供了巨大的發展潛力，因為一位具有人工智慧帶來的資料洞察力和精準性的放射科醫生可能會成為患者護理領域的強大力量。
詞彙表
screening 檢測，篩查
head-to-head 正面交鋒，一對一較量
spot 發現，看出
radiologists 放射科醫生
false positive 假陽性，實際非陽性但檢驗結果呈陽性
abnormal 不正常，異常
trial participants 試驗參與者，試驗對象
picked up 被發現
armed 裝備著，具有
data insight 資料洞察，通過分析研究資料而得到的深度理解
formidable 強大的，令人敬畏的
閱讀理解：請在讀完上文後，回答下列問題。
1. How is this research different to previous studies?
2. True or False? AI spots more false positives than radiologists do.
3. Why do trial participants need to be followed for two more years?
4. Why could the use of AI offer ‘huge promise’, although it can never replace radiologists?
答案
1. How is this research different to previous studies?
This latest research directly compares the performance of human experts and AI head-to-head for the first time.
2. True or False? AI spots more false positives than radiologists do.
False. It found AI could spot cancer at a similar rate to two radiologists and produce the same number of false positives.
3. Why do trial participants need to be followed for two more years?
The researchers will have to follow the trial participants for another two years to discover whether AI is better than humans and not missing cancers that should be picked up.
4. Why could the use of AI offer ‘huge promise’, although it can never replace radiologists?
Because a radiologist armed with the data insight and accuracy of AI could be a formidable force in patient care.
