Literature DB >> 16121585

Investigation of psychophysical measure for evaluation of similar images for mammographic masses: preliminary results.

Chisako Muramatsu1, Qiang Li, Kenji Suzuki, Robert A Schmidt, Junji Shiraishi, Gillian M Newstead, Kunio Doi.   

Abstract

We investigated a psychophysical similarity measure for selection of images similar to those of unknown masses on mammograms, which may assist radiologists in the distinction between benign and malignant masses. Sixty pairs of masses were selected from 1445 mass images prepared for this study, which were obtained from the Digital Database for Screening Mammography by the University of South Florida. Five radiologists provided subjective similarity ratings for these 60 pairs of masses based on the overall impression for diagnosis. Radiologists' subjective ratings were marked on a continuous rating scale and quantified between 0 and 1, which correspond to pairs not similar at all and pairs almost identical, respectively. By use of the subjective ratings as "gold standard," similarity measures based on the Euclidean distance between pairs in feature space and the psychophysical measure were determined. For determination of the psychophysical similarity measure, an artificial neural network (ANN) was employed to learn the relationship between radiologists' average subjective similarity ratings and computer-extracted image features. To evaluate the usefulness of the similarity measures, the agreement with the radiologists' subjective similarity ratings was assessed in terms of correlation coefficients between the average subjective ratings and the similarity measures. A commonly used similarity measure based on the Euclidean distance was moderately correlated (r=0.644) with the radiologists' average subjective ratings, whereas the psychophysical measure by use of the ANN was highly correlated (r=0.798). The preliminary result indicates that a psychophysical similarity measure would be useful in the selection of images similar to those of unknown masses on mammograms.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16121585     DOI: 10.1118/1.1944913

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


  18 in total

1.  Consensus versus disagreement in imaging research: a case study using the LIDC database.

Authors:  Dmitriy Zinovev; Yujie Duo; Daniela S Raicu; Jacob Furst; Samuel G Armato
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Evaluation of objective similarity measures for selecting similar images of mammographic lesions.

Authors:  Ryohei Nakayama; Hiroyuki Abe; Junji Shiraishi; Kunio Doi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Content-based image retrieval in radiology: analysis of variability in human perception of similarity.

Authors:  Jessica Faruque; Christopher F Beaulieu; Jarrett Rosenberg; Daniel L Rubin; Dorcas Yao; Sandy Napel
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-04-03

4.  Content-based retrieval of mammograms using visual features related to breast density patterns.

Authors:  Sérgio Koodi Kinoshita; Paulo Mazzoncini de Azevedo-Marques; Roberto Rodrigues Pereira; Jośe Antônio Heisinger Rodrigues; Rangaraj Mandayam Rangayyan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-02-22       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Interactive computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses: computerized selection of visually similar image sets from a reference library.

Authors:  Bin Zheng; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Xiao-Hui Wang; Gordon S Abrams; Jules H Sumkin; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Amy Lu; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 6.  Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential.

Authors:  Kunio Doi
Journal:  Comput Med Imaging Graph       Date:  2007-03-08       Impact factor: 4.790

7.  Improving performance of content-based image retrieval schemes in searching for similar breast mass regions: an assessment.

Authors:  Xiao-Hui Wang; Sang Cheol Park; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-01-16       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 8.  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

9.  Presentation of similar images as a reference for distinction between benign and malignant masses on mammograms: analysis of initial observer study.

Authors:  Chisako Muramatsu; Robert A Schmidt; Junji Shiraishi; Qiang Li; Kunio Doi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 10.  Overview of deep learning in medical imaging.

Authors:  Kenji Suzuki
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2017-07-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.