Literature DB >> 19366902

Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings.

Elizabeth S Burnside1, Jesse Davis, Jagpreet Chhatwal, Oguzhan Alagoz, Mary J Lindstrom, Berta M Geller, Benjamin Littenberg, Katherine A Shaffer, Charles E Kahn, C David Page.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether a Bayesian network trained on a large database of patient demographic risk factors and radiologist-observed findings from consecutive clinical mammography examinations can exceed radiologist performance in the classification of mammographic findings as benign or malignant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board exempted this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from requiring informed consent. Structured reports from 48 744 consecutive pooled screening and diagnostic mammography examinations in 18 269 patients from April 5, 1999 to February 9, 2004 were collected. Mammographic findings were matched with a state cancer registry, which served as the reference standard. By using 10-fold cross validation, the Bayesian network was tested and trained to estimate breast cancer risk by using demographic risk factors (age, family and personal history of breast cancer, and use of hormone replacement therapy) and mammographic findings recorded in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. The performance of radiologists compared with the Bayesian network was evaluated by using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity.
RESULTS: The Bayesian network significantly exceeded the performance of interpreting radiologists in terms of AUC (0.960 vs 0.939, P = .002), sensitivity (90.0% vs 85.3%, P < .001), and specificity (93.0% vs 88.1%, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: On the basis of prospectively collected variables, the evaluated Bayesian network can predict the probability of breast cancer and exceed interpreting radiologist performance. Bayesian networks may help radiologists improve mammographic interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19366902      PMCID: PMC2687530          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2513081346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  49 in total

1.  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

2.  Predicting biopsy outcome after mammography: what is the likelihood the patient has invasive or in situ breast cancer?

Authors:  Donald L Weaver; Pamela M Vacek; Joan M Skelly; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-06-22       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Bayesian networks of BI-RADStrade mark descriptors for breast lesion classification.

Authors:  E A Fischer; J Y Lo; M K Markey
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2004

4.  Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program.

Authors:  Tommy E Cupples; Joan E Cunningham; James C Reynolds
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Gail model for prediction of absolute risk of invasive breast cancer: independent evaluation in the Florence-European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition cohort.

Authors:  Adriano Decarli; Stefano Calza; Giovanna Masala; Claudia Specchia; Domenico Palli; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Carl D'Orsi; Eric A Berns; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-04-05       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined.

Authors:  Rita E Sohlich; Edward A Sickles; Elizabeth S Burnside; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.

Authors:  Constance Lehman; Sarah Holt; Susan Peacock; Emily White; Nicole Urban
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.

Authors:  L Liberman; A F Abramson; F B Squires; J R Glassman; E A Morris; D D Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  34 in total

1.  Retrieval boosted computer-aided diagnosis of clustered microcalcifications for breast cancer.

Authors:  Hao Jing; Yongyi Yang; Robert M Nishikawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  External validation of a publicly available computer assisted diagnostic tool for mammographic mass lesions with two high prevalence research datasets.

Authors:  Matthias Benndorf; Elizabeth S Burnside; Christoph Herda; Mathias Langer; Elmar Kotter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Developing a utility decision framework to evaluate predictive models in breast cancer risk estimation.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Craig K Abbey; Xianqiao Chen; Jie Liu; David C Page; Oguzhan Alagoz; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-08-17

4.  The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions.

Authors:  Mehmet U S Ayvaci; Oguzhan Alagoz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Manuf Serv Oper Manag       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.600

5.  Quantifying predictive capability of electronic health records for the most harmful breast cancer.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jun Fan; Peggy Peissig; Richard Berg; Ahmad Pahlavan Tafti; Jie Yin; Ming Yuan; David Page; Jennifer Cox; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2018-03-07

6.  Bayesian belief network analysis applied to determine the progression of temporomandibular disorders using MRI.

Authors:  H Iwasaki
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Improving breast cancer risk prediction by using demographic risk factors, abnormality features on mammograms and genetic variants.

Authors:  Shara I Feld; Kaitlin M Woo; Roxana Alexandridis; Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Jennifer Cox; C David Page; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

8.  Bayesian networks: a new method for the modeling of bibliographic knowledge: application to fall risk assessment in geriatric patients.

Authors:  Laure Lalande; Laurent Bourguignon; Chloé Carlier; Michel Ducher
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2013-01-20       Impact factor: 2.602

9.  Predicting visual semantic descriptive terms from radiological image data: preliminary results with liver lesions in CT.

Authors:  Adrien Depeursinge; Camille Kurtz; Christopher Beaulieu; Sandy Napel; Daniel Rubin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 10.048

10.  Applying Data Mining Techniques to Improve Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Joana Diz; Goreti Marreiros; Alberto Freitas
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 4.460

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.