Literature DB >> 20632577

Repeatability in computer-aided diagnosis: application to breast cancer diagnosis on sonography.

Karen Drukker1, Lorenzo Pesce, Maryellen Giger.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the concept of repeatability in a case-based performance evaluation of two classifiers commonly used in computer-aided diagnosis in the task of distinguishing benign from malignant lesions.
METHODS: The authors performed .632+ bootstrap analyses using a data set of 1251 sonographic lesions of which 212 were malignant. Several analyses were performed investigating the impact of sample size and number of bootstrap iterations. The classifiers investigated were a Bayesian neural net (BNN) with five hidden units and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Both used the same four input lesion features. While the authors did evaluate classifier performance using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the main focus was to investigate case-based performance based on the classifier output for individual cases, i.e., the classifier outputs for each test case measured over the bootstrap iterations. In this case-based analysis, the authors examined the classifier output variability and linked it to the concept of repeatability. Repeatability was assessed on the level of individual cases, overall for all cases in the data set, and regarding its dependence on the case-based classifier output. The impact of repeatability was studied when aiming to operate at a constant sensitivity or specificity and when aiming to operate at a constant threshold value for the classifier output.
RESULTS: The BNN slightly outperformed the LDA with an area under the ROC curve of 0.88 versus 0.85 (p < 0.05). In the repeatability analysis on an individual case basis, it was evident that different cases posed different degrees of difficulty to each classifier as measured by the by-case output variability. When considering the entire data set, however, the overall repeatability of the BNN classifier was lower than for the LDA classifier, i.e., the by-case variability for the BNN was higher. The dependence of the by-case variability on the average by-case classifier output was markedly different for the classifiers. The BNN achieved the lowest variability (best repeatability) when operating at high sensitivity (> 90%) and low specificity (< 66%), while the LDA achieved this at moderate sensitivity (approximately 74%) and specificity (approximately 84%). When operating at constant 90% sensitivity or constant 90% specificity, the width of the 95% confidence intervals for the corresponding classifier output was considerable for both classifiers and increased for smaller sample sizes. When operating at a constant threshold value for the classifier output, the width of the 95% confidence intervals for the corresponding sensitivity and specificity ranged from 9 percentage points (pp) to 30 pp.
CONCLUSIONS: The repeatability of the classifier output can have a substantial effect on the obtained sensitivity and specificity. Knowledge of classifier repeatability, in addition to overall performance level, is important for successful translation and implementation of computer-aided diagnosis in clinical decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20632577      PMCID: PMC2885941          DOI: 10.1118/1.3427409

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


  19 in total

1.  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

2.  Automatic segmentation of breast lesions on ultrasound.

Authors:  K Horsch; M L Giger; L A Venta; C J Vyborny
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  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

4.  Classifier performance prediction for computer-aided diagnosis using a limited dataset.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir Hadjiiski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Computer-aided diagnosis of lung cancer and pulmonary embolism in computed tomography-a review.

Authors:  Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou; Berkman Sahiner
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Experimental design and data analysis in receiver operating characteristic studies: lessons learned from reports in radiology from 1997 to 2006.

Authors:  Junji Shiraishi; Lorenzo L Pesce; Charles E Metz; Kunio Doi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Breast US computer-aided diagnosis system: robustness across urban populations in South Korea and the United States.

Authors:  Nicholas P Gruszauskas; Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Ruey-Feng Chang; Charlene A Sennett; Woo Kyung Moon; Lorenzo L Pesce
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Yading Yuan; Weijie Chen; Karla Horsch; Li Lan; Andrew R Jamieson; Charlene A Sennett; Sanaz A Jansen
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Performance of breast ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis: dependence on image selection.

Authors:  Nicholas P Gruszauskas; Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Charlene A Sennett; Lorenzo L Pesce
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Multi-modality CADx: ROC study of the effect on radiologists' accuracy in characterizing breast masses on mammograms and 3D ultrasound images.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Chintana Paramagul; Janet E Bailey; Alexis V Nees; Caroline E Blane; Dorit D Adler; Stephanie K Patterson; Katherine A Klein; Renee W Pinsky; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  6 in total

1.  Computer-aided diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis with optical tomography, Part 1: feature extraction.

Authors:  Ludguier D Montejo; Jingfei Jia; Hyun K Kim; Uwe J Netz; Sabine Blaschke; Gerhard A Müller; Andreas H Hielscher
Journal:  J Biomed Opt       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.170

2.  Semiparametric estimation of the relationship between ROC operating points and the test-result scale: application to the proper binormal model.

Authors:  Lorenzo L Pesce; Karla Horsch; Karen Drukker; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Computerized detection of breast cancer on automated breast ultrasound imaging of women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Charlene A Sennett; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Performance metric curve analysis framework to assess impact of the decision variable threshold, disease prevalence, and dataset variability in two-class classification.

Authors:  Heather M Whitney; Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-05-31

5.  Quantitative ultrasound image analysis of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen Giger; Lina Arbash Meinel; Adam Starkey; Jyothi Janardanan; Hiroyuki Abe
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 2.924

6.  Multi-Stage Harmonization for Robust AI across Breast MR Databases.

Authors:  Heather M Whitney; Hui Li; Yu Ji; Peifang Liu; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-26       Impact factor: 6.639

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.