OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic performance of radiologists using incremental CAD assistance for lung nodule detection on CT and their temporal variation in performance during CAD evaluation was assessed. METHODS: CAD was applied to 20 chest multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) scans containing 190 non-calcified > or =3-mm nodules. After free search, three radiologists independently evaluated a maximum of up to 50 CAD detections/patient. Multiple free-response ROC curves were generated for free search and successive CAD evaluation, by incrementally adding CAD detections one at a time to the radiologists' performance. RESULTS: The sensitivity for free search was 53% (range, 44%-59%) at 1.15 false positives (FP)/patient and increased with CAD to 69% (range, 59-82%) at 1.45 FP/patient. CAD evaluation initially resulted in a sharp rise in sensitivity of 14% with a minimal increase in FP over a time period of 100 s, followed by flattening of the sensitivity increase to only 2%. This transition resulted from a greater prevalence of true positive (TP) versus FP detections at early CAD evaluation and not by a temporal change in readers' performance. The time spent for TP (9.5 s +/- 4.5 s) and false negative (FN) (8.4 s +/- 6.7 s) detections was similar; FP decisions took two- to three-times longer (14.4 s +/- 8.7 s) than true negative (TN) decisions (4.7 s +/- 1.3 s). CONCLUSIONS: When CAD output is ordered by CAD score, an initial period of rapid performance improvement slows significantly over time because of non-uniformity in the distribution of TP CAD output and not to a changing reader performance over time.
OBJECTIVE: The diagnostic performance of radiologists using incremental CAD assistance for lung nodule detection on CT and their temporal variation in performance during CAD evaluation was assessed. METHODS: CAD was applied to 20 chest multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) scans containing 190 non-calcified > or =3-mm nodules. After free search, three radiologists independently evaluated a maximum of up to 50 CAD detections/patient. Multiple free-response ROC curves were generated for free search and successive CAD evaluation, by incrementally adding CAD detections one at a time to the radiologists' performance. RESULTS: The sensitivity for free search was 53% (range, 44%-59%) at 1.15 false positives (FP)/patient and increased with CAD to 69% (range, 59-82%) at 1.45 FP/patient. CAD evaluation initially resulted in a sharp rise in sensitivity of 14% with a minimal increase in FP over a time period of 100 s, followed by flattening of the sensitivity increase to only 2%. This transition resulted from a greater prevalence of true positive (TP) versus FP detections at early CAD evaluation and not by a temporal change in readers' performance. The time spent for TP (9.5 s +/- 4.5 s) and false negative (FN) (8.4 s +/- 6.7 s) detections was similar; FP decisions took two- to three-times longer (14.4 s +/- 8.7 s) than true negative (TN) decisions (4.7 s +/- 1.3 s). CONCLUSIONS: When CAD output is ordered by CAD score, an initial period of rapid performance improvement slows significantly over time because of non-uniformity in the distribution of TP CAD output and not to a changing reader performance over time.
Authors: Bin Zheng; Joseph K Leader; Gordon Abrams; Betty Shindel; Victor Catullo; Walter F Good; David Gur Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marco Das; Georg Mühlenbruch; Andreas H Mahnken; Thomas G Flohr; Lutz Gündel; Sven Stanzel; Thomas Kraus; Rolf W Günther; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Anthony P Reeves; Charles R Meyer; Geoffrey McLennan; Denise R Aberle; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R van Beek; David Yankelevitz; Eric A Hoffman; Claudia I Henschke; Rachael Y Roberts; Matthew S Brown; Roger M Engelmann; Richard C Pais; Christopher W Piker; David Qing; Masha Kocherginsky; Barbara Y Croft; Laurence P Clarke Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: M Das; G Mühlenbruch; S Heinen; A H Mahnken; M Salganicoff; S Stanzel; R W Günther; J E Wildberger Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Myrna C B Godoy; Peter L Cooperberg; Zeev V Maizlin; Ren Yuan; Annette McWilliams; Stephen Lam; John R Mayo Journal: J Thorac Imaging Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Luca Bogoni; Jane P Ko; Jeffrey Alpert; Vikram Anand; John Fantauzzi; Charles H Florin; Chi Wan Koo; Derek Mason; William Rom; Maria Shiau; Marcos Salganicoff; David P Naidich Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Arjun Nair; Natalie Gartland; Bruce Barton; Diane Jones; Leigh Clements; Nicholas J Screaton; John A Holemans; Stephen W Duffy; John K Field; David R Baldwin; David M Hansell; Anand Devaraj Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Fabien Maldonado; Fenghai Duan; Sushravya M Raghunath; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Ronald A Karwoski; Kavita Garg; Erin Greco; Hrudaya Nath; Richard A Robb; Brian J Bartholmai; Tobias Peikert Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sushravya Raghunath; Fabien Maldonado; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Ronald A Karwoski; Zackary S DePew; Brian J Bartholmai; Tobias Peikert; Richard A Robb Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Charlene Jin Yee Liew; Lester Chee Hao Leong; Lynette Li San Teo; Ching Ching Ong; Foong Koon Cheah; Wei Ping Tham; Haja Mohamed Mohideen Salahudeen; Chau Hung Lee; Gregory Jon Leng Kaw; Augustine Kim Huat Tee; Ian Yu Yan Tsou; Kiang Hiong Tay; Raymond Quah; Bien Peng Tan; Hong Chou; Daniel Tan; Angeline Choo Choo Poh; Andrew Gee Seng Tan Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 1.858