Literature DB >> 16964873

Optimized approach to decision fusion of heterogeneous data for breast cancer diagnosis.

Jonathan L Jesneck1, Loren W Nolte, Jay A Baker, Carey E Floyd, Joseph Y Lo.   

Abstract

As more diagnostic testing options become available to physicians, it becomes more difficult to combine various types of medical information together in order to optimize the overall diagnosis. To improve diagnostic performance, here we introduce an approach to optimize a decision-fusion technique to combine heterogeneous information, such as from different modalities, feature categories, or institutions. For classifier comparison we used two performance metrics: The receiving operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve [area under the ROC curve (AUC)] and the normalized partial area under the curve (pAUC). This study used four classifiers: Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), artificial neural network (ANN), and two variants of our decision-fusion technique, AUC-optimized (DF-A) and pAUC-optimized (DF-P) decision fusion. We applied each of these classifiers with 100-fold cross-validation to two heterogeneous breast cancer data sets: One of mass lesion features and a much more challenging one of microcalcification lesion features. For the calcification data set, DF-A outperformed the other classifiers in terms of AUC (p < 0.02) and achieved AUC=0.85 +/- 0.01. The DF-P surpassed the other classifiers in terms of pAUC (p < 0.01) and reached pAUC=0.38 +/- 0.02. For the mass data set, DF-A outperformed both the ANN and the LDA (p < 0.04) and achieved AUC=0.94 +/- 0.01. Although for this data set there were no statistically significant differences among the classifiers' pAUC values (pAUC=0.57 +/- 0.07 to 0.67 +/- 0.05, p > 0.10), the DF-P did significantly improve specificity versus the LDA at both 98% and 100% sensitivity (p < 0.04). In conclusion, decision fusion directly optimized clinically significant performance measures, such as AUC and pAUC, and sometimes outperformed two well-known machine-learning techniques when applied to two different breast cancer data sets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16964873      PMCID: PMC2569003          DOI: 10.1118/1.2208934

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


  35 in total

1.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.

Authors:  L J Warren Burhenne; S A Wood; C J D'Orsi; S A Feig; D B Kopans; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles; L Tabar; C J Vyborny; R A Castellino
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Computerized diagnosis of breast lesions on ultrasound.

Authors:  Karla Horsch; Maryellen L Giger; Luz A Venta; Carl J Vyborny
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The life-sparing potential of mammographic screening.

Authors:  B Cady; J S Michaelson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Parameter optimization of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme for the segmentation of microcalcification clusters in mammograms.

Authors:  Marios A Gavrielides; Joseph Y Lo; Carey E Floyd
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses on full field digital mammograms.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Heang-Ping Chan; Nicholas Petrick; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Jun Ge; Chuan Zhou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Computer aid for decision to biopsy breast masses on mammography: validation on new cases.

Authors:  Anna O Bilska-Wolak; Carey E Floyd; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Breast cancer diagnosis using self-organizing map for sonography.

Authors:  D Chen; R F Chang; Y L Huang
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center.

Authors:  T W Freer; M J Ulissey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Predicting the clinical status of human breast cancer by using gene expression profiles.

Authors:  M West; C Blanchette; H Dressman; E Huang; S Ishida; R Spang; H Zuzan; J A Olson; J R Marks; J R Nevins
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-09-18       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 10.  Recent trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality.

Authors:  James V Lacey; Susan S Devesa; Louise A Brinton
Journal:  Environ Mol Mutagen       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 3.216

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Modeling paradigms for medical diagnostic decision support: a survey and future directions.

Authors:  Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Vijayraghavan Sundararajan; Ashok W Deshpande
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Bayesian quantitative electrophysiology and its multiple applications in bioengineering.

Authors:  Roger C Barr; Loren W Nolte; Andrew E Pollard
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2010

4.  Characterization of mammographic masses based on level set segmentation with new image features and patient information.

Authors:  Jiazheng Shi; Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Ge; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Alexis Nees; Yi-Ta Wu; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Yiheng Zhang; Jing Cui
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  An adaptive incremental approach to constructing ensemble classifiers: application in an information-theoretic computer-aided decision system for detection of masses in mammograms.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Jacek M Zurada; Georgia D Tourassi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Optimized image acquisition for breast tomosynthesis in projection and reconstruction space.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Joseph Y Lo; Jay A Baker; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Decis Anal       Date:  2013-09

8.  Optimal Breast Biopsy Decision-Making Based on Mammographic Features and Demographic Factors.

Authors:  Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Oper Res       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 3.310

9.  Multimodal wavelet embedding representation for data combination (MaWERiC): integrating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  P Tiwari; S Viswanath; J Kurhanewicz; A Sridhar; A Madabhushi
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2011-09-30       Impact factor: 4.044

10.  Towards optimized acquisition scheme for multiprojection correlation imaging of breast cancer.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Robert S Saunders; Swatee Singh; Joseph Y Lo; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.