RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to determine whether a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) system was suitable from one ultrasound (US) unit to another after parameters were adjusted by using intelligent selection algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors used texture analysis and data mining with a decision tree model to classify breast tumors with different US systems. The databases of training cases from one unit and testing cases from another were collected from different countries. Regions of interest on US scans and co-variance texture parameters were used in the diagnosis system. Proposed adjustment schemes for different US systems were used to transform the information needed for a differential diagnosis. RESULTS: Comparison of the diagnostic system with and without adjustment, respectively, yielded the following results: accuracy, 89.9% and 82.2%; sensitivity, 94.6% and 92.2%; specificity, 85.4% and 72.3%; positive predictive value, 86.5% and 76.8%; and negative predictive value, 94.1% and 90.4%. The improvement in accuracy, specificity, and positive predictive value was statistically significant. Diagnostic performance was improved after the adjustment. CONCLUSION: After parameters were adjusted by using intelligent selection algorithms, the performance of the proposed CAD system was better both with the same and with different systems. Different resolutions, different setting conditions, and different scanner ages are no longer obstacles to the application of such a CAD system.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to determine whether a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) system was suitable from one ultrasound (US) unit to another after parameters were adjusted by using intelligent selection algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors used texture analysis and data mining with a decision tree model to classify breast tumors with different US systems. The databases of training cases from one unit and testing cases from another were collected from different countries. Regions of interest on US scans and co-variance texture parameters were used in the diagnosis system. Proposed adjustment schemes for different US systems were used to transform the information needed for a differential diagnosis. RESULTS: Comparison of the diagnostic system with and without adjustment, respectively, yielded the following results: accuracy, 89.9% and 82.2%; sensitivity, 94.6% and 92.2%; specificity, 85.4% and 72.3%; positive predictive value, 86.5% and 76.8%; and negative predictive value, 94.1% and 90.4%. The improvement in accuracy, specificity, and positive predictive value was statistically significant. Diagnostic performance was improved after the adjustment. CONCLUSION: After parameters were adjusted by using intelligent selection algorithms, the performance of the proposed CAD system was better both with the same and with different systems. Different resolutions, different setting conditions, and different scanner ages are no longer obstacles to the application of such a CAD system.
Authors: Stavros K Kakkos; Andrew N Nicolaides; Efthyvoulos Kyriacou; Constantinos S Pattichis; George Geroulakos Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2006-01-28 Impact factor: 2.062