This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
The reporting quality of natural language processing studies: systematic review of studies of radiology reports
BMC Medical Imaging Open Access 02 October 2021
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 per month
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Haibe-Kains, B. et al. Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2766-y (2020).
McKinney, S. M. et al. International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577, 89–94 (2020).
Kim, H.-E. et al. Changes in cancer detection and false-positive recall in mammography using artificial intelligence: a retrospective, multireader study. Lancet Digital Health 2, e138–e148 (2020).
Wu, N. et al. Deep neural networks improve radiologists’ performance in breast cancer screening. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 39, 1184–1194 (2019).
Rodriguez-Ruiz, A. et al. Stand-alone artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography: comparison with 101 radiologists. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 111, 916–922 (2019).
Lee, R. S. et al. A curated mammography data set for use in computer-aided detection and diagnosis research. Sci. Data 4, 170177 (2017).
McKinney, S. M. et al. Addendum: International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2679-9 (2020).
Price, W. N., II, Gerke, S. & Cohen, I. G. Potential liability for physicians using artificial intelligence. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 322, 1765–1766 (2019).
Abadi, M. et al. Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proc. 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference Computer Communications Security CCS’16 308–318 (2016).
Acknowledgements
We thank A. Dai and E. Gabrilovich for comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
This Reply was prepared by a subset of the authors of the original Article in addition to Y.L., all of whom have expertise related to this exchange. S.M.M., A.K., D.T., C.J.K, Y.L., G.S.C. and S.S. wrote and revised this Reply.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
This study was funded by Google LLC. S.M.M., A.K., D.T., C.J.K, Y.L., G.S.C. and S.S. are employees of Google and own stock as part of the standard compensation package. The authors have no other competing interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McKinney, S.M., Karthikesalingam, A., Tse, D. et al. Reply to: Transparency and reproducibility in artificial intelligence. Nature 586, E17–E18 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2767-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2767-x
This article is cited by
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
