Y Jiang1, R M Nishikawa, R A Schmidt, A Y Toledano, K Doi. 1. Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research, Dept of Radiology, Univ of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC2026, Chicago, IL 60637, USA. y-jiang@uchicago.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether computer-aided diagnosis can reduce interobserver variability in the interpretation of mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists interpreted mammograms showing clustered microcalcifications in 104 patients. Decisions for biopsy or follow-up were made with and without a computer aid, and these decisions were compared. The computer was used to estimate the likelihood that a microcalcification cluster was due to a malignancy. Variability in the radiologists' recommendations for biopsy versus follow-up was then analyzed. RESULTS: Variation in the radiologists' accuracy, as measured with the SD of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, was reduced by 46% with computer aid. Access to the computer aid increased the agreement among all observers from 13% to 32% of the total cases (P <.001), while the kappa value increased from 0.19 to 0.41 (P <.05). Use of computer aid eliminated two-thirds of the substantial disagreements in which two radiologists recommended biopsy and routine screening in the same patient (P <.05). CONCLUSION: In addition to its demonstrated potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, computer-aided diagnosis has the potential to reduce the variability among radiologists in the interpretation of mammograms.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether computer-aided diagnosis can reduce interobserver variability in the interpretation of mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists interpreted mammograms showing clustered microcalcifications in 104 patients. Decisions for biopsy or follow-up were made with and without a computer aid, and these decisions were compared. The computer was used to estimate the likelihood that a microcalcification cluster was due to a malignancy. Variability in the radiologists' recommendations for biopsy versus follow-up was then analyzed. RESULTS: Variation in the radiologists' accuracy, as measured with the SD of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, was reduced by 46% with computer aid. Access to the computer aid increased the agreement among all observers from 13% to 32% of the total cases (P <.001), while the kappa value increased from 0.19 to 0.41 (P <.05). Use of computer aid eliminated two-thirds of the substantial disagreements in which two radiologists recommended biopsy and routine screening in the same patient (P <.05). CONCLUSION: In addition to its demonstrated potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, computer-aided diagnosis has the potential to reduce the variability among radiologists in the interpretation of mammograms.
Authors: Ronald M Summers; Jianhua Yao; Perry J Pickhardt; Marek Franaszek; Ingmar Bitter; Daniel Brickman; Vamsi Krishna; J Richard Choi Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Yohan Sumathipala; Nathan Lay; Baris Turkbey; Clayton Smith; Peter L Choyke; Ronald M Summers Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-12-15
Authors: Jiaming Zeng; Francisco Gimenez; Elizabeth S Burnside; Daniel L Rubin; Ross Shachter Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 2.583