Literature DB >> 17879797

Bilateral analysis based false positive reduction for computer-aided mass detection.

Yi-Ta Wu1, Jun Wei, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Berkman Sahiner, Chuan Zhou, Jun Ge, Jiazheng Shi, Yiheng Zhang, Heang-Ping Chan.   

Abstract

We have developed a false positive (FP) reduction method based on analysis of bilateral mammograms for computerized mass detection systems. The mass candidates on each view were first detected by our unilateral computer-aided detection (CAD) system. For each detected object, a regional registration technique was used to define a region of interest (ROI) that is "symmetrical" to the object location on the contralateral mammogram. Texture features derived from the spatial gray level dependence matrices and morphological features were extracted from the ROI containing the detected object on a mammogram and its corresponding ROI on the contralateral mammogram. Bilateral features were then generated from corresponding pairs of unilateral features for each object. Two linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifiers were trained from the unilateral and the bilateral feature spaces, respectively. Finally, the scores from the unilateral LDA classifier and the bilateral LDA asymmetry classifier were fused with a third LDA whose output score was used to distinguish true mass from FPs. A data set of 341 cases of bilateral two-view mammograms was used in this study, of which 276 cases with 552 bilateral pairs contained 110 malignant and 166 benign biopsy-proven masses and 65 cases with 130 bilateral pairs were normal. The mass data set was divided into two subsets for twofold cross-validation training and testing. The normal data set was used for estimation of FP rates. It was found that our bilateral CAD system achieved a case-based sensitivity of 70%, 80%, and 85% at average FP rates of 0.35, 0.75, and 0.95 FPs/image, respectively, on the test data sets with malignant masses. In comparison to the average FP rates for the unilateral CAD system of 0.58, 1.33, and 1.63, respectively, at the corresponding sensitivities, the FP rates were reduced by 40%, 44%, and 42% with the bilateral symmetry information. The improvement was statistically significance (p < 0.05) as estimated by JAFROC analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17879797      PMCID: PMC2742209          DOI: 10.1118/1.2756612

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


  29 in total

1.  Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms.

Authors:  C Zhou; H P Chan; N Petrick; M A Helvie; M M Goodsitt; B Sahiner; L M Hadjiiski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Analysis of temporal changes of mammographic features: computer-aided classification of malignant and benign breast masses.

Authors:  L Hadjiiski; B Sahiner; H P Chan; N Petrick; M A Helvie; M Gurcan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-11       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.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; D M Ikeda; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  C R Smart; R E Hendrick; J H Rutledge; R A Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22

8.  Classifying mammographic lesions using computerized image analysis.

Authors:  J Kilday; F Palmieri; M D Fox
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 10.048

9.  Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial.

Authors:  Mark A Helvie; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Erini Makariou; Heang-Ping Chan; Nicholas Petrick; Berkman Sahiner; Shih-Chung B Lo; Matthew Freedman; Dorit Adler; Janet Bailey; Caroline Blane; Donna Hoff; Karen Hunt; Lynn Joynt; Katherine Klein; Chintana Paramagul; Stephanie K Patterson; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-02-27       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  12 in total

1.  Exploring the potential of context-sensitive CADe in screening mammography.

Authors:  Georgia D Tourassi; Maciej A Mazurowski; Brian P Harrawood; Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

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.  Automated breast mass detection in 3D reconstructed tomosynthesis volumes: a featureless approach.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Georgia D Tourassi; Jay A Baker; Ehsan Samei; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses: four-view strategy for screening mammography.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Chuan Zhou; Yi-Ta Wu; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Dynamic multiple thresholding breast boundary detection algorithm for mammograms.

Authors:  Yi-Ta Wu; Chuan Zhou; Heang-Ping Chan; Chintana Paramagul; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Caroline Plowden Daly; Julie A Douglas; Yiheng Zhang; Berkman Sahiner; Jiazheng Shi; Jun Wei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Overview of deep learning in medical imaging.

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

7.  An interpretable classifier for high-resolution breast cancer screening images utilizing weakly supervised localization.

Authors:  Yiqiu Shen; Nan Wu; Jason Phang; Jungkyu Park; Kangning Liu; Sudarshini Tyagi; Laura Heacock; S Gene Kim; Linda Moy; Kyunghyun Cho; Krzysztof J Geras
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2020-12-16       Impact factor: 8.545

Review 8.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Pixel-based machine learning in medical imaging.

Authors:  Kenji Suzuki
Journal:  Int J Biomed Imaging       Date:  2012-02-28

10.  Multiscale Mask R-CNN-Based Lung Tumor Detection Using PET Imaging.

Authors:  Rui Zhang; Chao Cheng; Xuehua Zhao; Xuechen Li
Journal:  Mol Imaging       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 4.488

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.