Human reference labels used to evaluate medical AI can vary across readers and annotation workflows. We quantified agreement of a fixed pathology AI system with a future qualified reader without treating inferred consensus as error-free biological truth. Linked Evaluation and Unbiased NuCLS multirater data were analyzed using a fixed external HoVer-Net decision vector. The selected frame contained 1,144 anchors, 52 fields of view, five slides/patients, and five primary readers. The target was fixed-AI agreement with a future reader, with descriptive contrast $Δ=θ_E-θ_U$. Analyses included raw agreement and iMRMC benchmarks, reader-only and shared-detectability Bayesian models, structural sensitivities, adversarial simulations, and predictive assessment. Among 5,188 reader-anchor pairs observed in both conditions, 19.62% changed AI-agreement state, while raw agreement was 0.5466 in Unbiased and 0.5473 in Evaluation. The reader-only model gave $Δ=-0.0008$ (95% CrI, $-0.0033$ to $0.0008$), and the shared-detectability model gave $Δ\approx0$ ($-0.0140$ to $0.0127$). Across structural perturbations, absolute agreement ranged from 0.420 to 0.646 in Unbiased and 0.409 to 0.640 in Evaluation. Frozen adversarial simulations met the comparative-stability criterion (median $R=0.295$; 14/16 model-scenario cells had $R<1$). Held-out-AI prediction supported shared predictive information, but varied by slide composition. The Evaluation-minus-Unbiased contrast was comparatively stable, whereas absolute agreement was structurally sensitive. These findings do not establish equivalence, causal assistance effects, biological accuracy, or new-patient transportability. Evaluations using variable human references should report reader population, selected frame, observation mechanism, and structural sensitivity.

翻译：暂无翻译