IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v16y2025i1d10.1038_s41467-025-57409-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economics of AI and human task sharing for decision making in screening mammography

Author

Listed:
  • Mehmet Eren Ahsen

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • Mehmet U. S. Ayvaci

    (University of Texas at Dallas)

  • Radha Mookerjee

    (University of Texas at Dallas)

  • Gustavo Stolovitzky

    (NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York
    NYU Langone Health, New York)

Abstract

The rising global incidence of breast cancer and the persistent shortage of specialized radiologists have heightened the demand for innovative solutions in mammography screening. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to bridge this demand-supply gap, with potential applications ranging from full automation to integrated AI-human decision-making. This study evaluates the economic feasibility of incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into mammography screening within healthcare settings, considering full or partial integration. To evaluate the economic viability, we employ an optimization model specifically designed to minimize mammography screening costs. This model considers three distinct approaches when interpreting mammograms: automation strategy utilizing AI exclusively, delegation strategy involving the selective allocation of tasks between radiologists and AI, and the expert-alone strategy relying solely on radiologist decisions. Our findings underscore the significance of disease prevalence in relation to the trade-off between costs associated with false positives (e.g., follow-up expenses) and false negatives (e.g., litigation costs stemming from missed diagnoses) in shaping the AI strategy for healthcare organizations. We backtest our approach using data from an AI contest in which participants aimed to match or surpass radiologists’ performance in assessing screening mammograms for women. The contest data supports the optimality of the delegation strategy, potentially leading to cost savings of 17.5% to 30.1% compared to relying solely on human experts. Our research provides guidance for healthcare organizations considering AI integration in mammography screening, with broader implications for work design and human-AI hybrid solutions in various fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehmet Eren Ahsen & Mehmet U. S. Ayvaci & Radha Mookerjee & Gustavo Stolovitzky, 2025. "Economics of AI and human task sharing for decision making in screening mammography," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-57409-1
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-57409-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57409-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-025-57409-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J. Vickers & Elena B. Elkin, 2006. "Decision Curve Analysis: A Novel Method for Evaluating Prediction Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(6), pages 565-574, November.
    2. Mehmet Ulvi Saygi Ayvaci & Mehmet Eren Ahsen & Srinivasan Raghunathan & Zahra Gharibi, 2017. "Timing the Use of Breast Cancer Risk Information in Biopsy Decision-Making," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(7), pages 1333-1358, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ja Hyeon Ku & Myong Kim & Seok-Soo Byun & Hyeon Jeong & Cheol Kwak & Hyeon Hoe Kim & Sang Eun Lee, 2015. "External Validation of Models for Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis in Urothelial Carcinoma of the Bladder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-10, October.
    2. Lin Lu & Laurent Dercle & Binsheng Zhao & Lawrence H. Schwartz, 2021. "Deep learning for the prediction of early on-treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer from serial medical imaging," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Yiwang Zhou & Peter X.K. Song & Haoda Fu, 2021. "Net benefit index: Assessing the influence of a biomarker for individualized treatment rules," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1254-1264, December.
    4. Jing Sun & Yue Liu & Jianhui Zhao & Bin Lu & Siyun Zhou & Wei Lu & Jingsun Wei & Yeting Hu & Xiangxing Kong & Junshun Gao & Hong Guan & Junli Gao & Qian Xiao & Xue Li, 2024. "Plasma proteomic and polygenic profiling improve risk stratification and personalized screening for colorectal cancer," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Shamil D. Cooray & Lihini A. Wijeyaratne & Georgia Soldatos & John Allotey & Jacqueline A. Boyle & Helena J. Teede, 2020. "The Unrealised Potential for Predicting Pregnancy Complications in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Khushal Arjan & Lui G Forni & Richard M Venn & David Hunt & Luke Eliot Hodgson, 2021. "Clinical decision-making in older adults following emergency admission to hospital. Derivation and validation of a risk stratification score: OPERA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-12, March.
    7. Christian Bock & Joan Elias Walter & Bastian Rieck & Ivo Strebel & Klara Rumora & Ibrahim Schaefer & Michael J. Zellweger & Karsten Borgwardt & Christian Müller, 2024. "Enhancing the diagnosis of functionally relevant coronary artery disease with machine learning," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Tracey L. Marsh & Holly Janes & Margaret S. Pepe, 2020. "Statistical inference for net benefit measures in biomarker validation studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 843-852, September.
    9. Chang Wook Jeong & Sangchul Lee & Jin-Woo Jung & Byung Ki Lee & Seong Jin Jeong & Sung Kyu Hong & Seok-Soo Byun & Sang Eun Lee, 2014. "Mobile Application-Based Seoul National University Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator: Development, Validation, and Comparative Analysis with Two Western Risk Calculators in Korean Men," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-7, April.
    10. Yanqing Wang & Yingqi Zhao & Yingye Zheng, 2022. "Targeted Search for Individualized Clinical Decision Rules to Optimize Clinical Outcomes," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 14(3), pages 564-581, December.
    11. Tae Yoon Lee & Paul Gustafson & Mohsen Sadatsafavi, 2023. "Closed-Form Solution of the Unit Normal Loss Integral in 2 Dimensions, with Application in Value-of-Information Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 621-626, July.
    12. Baker Stuart G. & Van Calster Ben & Steyerberg Ewout W., 2012. "Evaluating a New Marker for Risk Prediction Using the Test Tradeoff: An Update," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-37, March.
    13. Kevin Sandeman & Juho T Eineluoto & Joona Pohjonen & Andrew Erickson & Tuomas P Kilpeläinen & Petrus Järvinen & Henrikki Santti & Anssi Petas & Mika Matikainen & Suvi Marjasuo & Anu Kenttämies & Tuoma, 2020. "Prostate MRI added to CAPRA, MSKCC and Partin cancer nomograms significantly enhances the prediction of adverse findings and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, July.
    14. Naumzik, Christof & Feuerriegel, Stefan & Nielsen, Anne Molgaard, 2023. "Data-driven dynamic treatment planning for chronic diseases," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 853-867.
    15. Danny J N Wong & Steve Harris & Arun Sahni & James R Bedford & Laura Cortes & Richard Shawyer & Andrew M Wilson & Helen A Lindsay & Doug Campbell & Scott Popham & Lisa M Barneto & Paul S Myles & SNAP-, 2020. "Developing and validating subjective and objective risk-assessment measures for predicting mortality after major surgery: An international prospective cohort study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-22, October.
    16. Maria De‐Arteaga & Stefan Feuerriegel & Maytal Saar‐Tsechansky, 2022. "Algorithmic fairness in business analytics: Directions for research and practice," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(10), pages 3749-3770, October.
    17. Fergus Imrie & Bogdan Cebere & Eoin F McKinney & Mihaela van der Schaar, 2023. "AutoPrognosis 2.0: Democratizing diagnostic and prognostic modeling in healthcare with automated machine learning," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(6), pages 1-21, June.
    18. François Luthi & Olivier Deriaz & Philippe Vuistiner & Cyrille Burrus & Roger Hilfiker, 2014. "Predicting Non Return to Work after Orthopaedic Trauma: The Wallis Occupational Rehabilitation RisK (WORRK) Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-11, April.
    19. Capponi, Giovanna & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2022. "Breakthrough innovations and where to find them," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    20. Ying Huang & Eric Laber, 2016. "Personalized Evaluation of Biomarker Value: A Cost-Benefit Perspective," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 8(1), pages 43-65, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-57409-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.