Literature DB >> 15109012

Detection and classification performance levels of mammographic masses under different computer-aided detection cueing environments.

Bin Zheng1, Richard G Swensson, Sara Golla, Christiane M Hakim, Ratan Shah, Luisa Wallace, David Gur.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated the impact of different computer-aided detection (CAD) cueing conditions on radiologists' performance levels in detecting and classifying masses depicted on mammograms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an observer performance study, eight radiologists interpreted 110 subtle cases six times under different display conditions to detect depicted masses and classify them as benign or malignant. Forty-five cases depicted biopsy-proven masses and 65 were negative. One mass-based cueing sensitivity of 80% and two false-positive cueing rates of 1.2 and 0.5 per image were used in this study. In one mode, radiologists first interpreted images without CAD results, followed by the display of cues and reinterpretation. In another mode, radiologists viewed CAD cues as images were presented and then interpreted images. Free-response receiver operating characteristic method was used to analyze and compare detection performance. The receiver operating characteristic method was used to evaluate classification performance.
RESULTS: At these performance levels, providing cues after initial interpretation had little effect on the overall performance in detecting masses. However, in the mode with the highest false-positive cueing rate, viewing CAD cues immediately upon display of images significantly reduced average performance for both detection and classification tasks (P < .05). Viewing CAD cues during the initial display consistently resulted in fewer abnormalities being identified in noncued regions.
CONCLUSION: CAD systems with low sensitivity (< or = 80% on mass-based detection) and high false-positive rate (> or = 0.5 per image) in a dataset with subtle abnormalities had little effect on radiologists' performance in the detection and classification of mammographic masses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15109012     DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)00677-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  3 in total

1.  The influence of initial outlines on manual segmentation.

Authors:  William F Sensakovic; Adam Starkey; Rachael Roberts; Christopher Straus; Philip Caligiuri; Masha Kocherginsky; Samuel G Armato
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Effect of CAD on radiologists' detection of lung nodules on thoracic CT scans: analysis of an observer performance study by nodule size.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Philip N Cascade; Ella A Kazerooni; Aamer R Chughtai; Chad Poopat; Thomas Song; Luba Frank; Jadranka Stojanovska; Anil Attili
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Variable size computer-aided detection prompts and mammography film reader decisions.

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Susan M Astley; Caroline Rm Boggis; Magnus A McGee; Pamela M Griffiths; Stephen W Duffy; Olorunsola F Agbaje; Maureen Gc Gillan; Mary Wilson; Anil K Jain; Nicola Barr; Ursula M Beetles; Miriam A Griffiths; Jill Johnson; Rita M Roberts; Heather E Deans; Karen A Duncan; Geeta Iyengar
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 6.466

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.