Literature DB >> 14761024

Estimating three-class ideal observer decision variables for computerized detection and classification of mammographic mass lesions.

Darrin C Edwards1, Li Lan, Charles E Metz, Maryellen L Giger, Robert M Nishikawa.   

Abstract

We are using Bayesian artificial neural networks (BANNs) to classify mammographic masses in schemes for computer-aided diagnosis, and we are extending this methodology to a three-class classification task. We investigated whether a BANN can estimate ideal observer decision variables to distinguish malignant, benign, and false-positive computer detections. Five features were calculated for 63 malignant and 29 benign computer-detected mass lesions, and for 1049 false-positive computer detections, in 440 mammograms randomly divided into a training and testing set. A BANN was trained on the training set features and applied to the testing set features. We then used a known relation between three-class ideal observer decision variables and that used by a two-class ideal observer when two of three classes are grouped into one class, giving one decision variable for distinguishing malignant from nonmalignant detections, and a second for distinguishing true-positive from false-positive computer detections. For comparison, we grouped the training data into two classes in the same two ways and trained two-class BANNs for these two tasks. The three-class BANN decision variables were essentially identical in performance to the specifically trained two-class BANNs, with the average difference in area under the ROC curves being less than 0.0035 and no differences in area being statistically significant. Thus, the BANN outputs obey the same theoretical relationship as do the three-class and two-class ideal observer decision variables, which is consistent with the claim that the three-class BANN output can provide good estimates of the decision variables used by a three-class ideal observer.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14761024     DOI: 10.1118/1.1631912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

Review 1.  ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature.

Authors:  Charles E Metz
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2007-10-27

Review 2.  Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Heang-Ping Chan; John Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Validation of Monte Carlo estimates of three-class ideal observer operating points for normal data.

Authors:  Darrin C Edwards
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  The meaning and use of the volume under a three-class ROC surface (VUS).

Authors:  Xin He; Eric C Frey
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Three-class ROC analysis--toward a general decision theoretic solution.

Authors:  Xin He; Brandon D Gallas; Eric C Frey
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  Computerized three-class classification of MRI-based prognostic markers for breast cancer.

Authors:  Neha Bhooshan; Maryellen Giger; Darrin Edwards; Yading Yuan; Sanaz Jansen; Hui Li; Li Lan; Husain Sattar; Gillian Newstead
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  The three-class ideal observer for univariate normal data: Decision variable and ROC surface properties.

Authors:  Darrin C Edwards; Charles E Metz
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 2.223

8.  Application of three-class ROC analysis to task-based image quality assessment of simultaneous dual-isotope myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS).

Authors:  Xin He; Xiyun Song; Eric C Frey
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 10.048

9.  The validity of three-class Hotelling trace (3-HT) in describing three-class task performance: comparison of three-class volume under ROC surface (VUS) and 3-HT.

Authors:  Xin He; Eric C Frey
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 10.048

10.  Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer?

Authors:  Jonathan L Jesneck; Sayan Mukherjee; Zoya Yurkovetsky; Merlise Clyde; Jeffrey R Marks; Anna E Lokshin; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 4.430

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.