Literature DB >> 21158284

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

Georgia D Tourassi1, Maciej A Mazurowski, Brian P Harrawood, Elizabeth A Krupinski.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Conventional computer-assisted detection (CADe) systems in screening mammography provide the same decision support to all users. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of a context-sensitive CADe system which provides decision support guided by each user's focus of attention during visual search and reporting patterns for a specific case.
METHODS: An observer study for the detection of malignant masses in screening mammograms was conducted in which six radiologists evaluated 20 mammograms while wearing an eye-tracking device. Eye-position data and diagnostic decisions were collected for each radiologist and case they reviewed. These cases were subsequently analyzed with an in-house knowledge-based CADe system using two different modes: Conventional mode with a globally fixed decision threshold and context-sensitive mode with a location-variable decision threshold based on the radiologists' eye dwelling data and reporting information.
RESULTS: The CADe system operating in conventional mode had 85.7% per-image malignant mass sensitivity at 3.15 false positives per image (FPsI). The same system operating in context-sensitive mode provided personalized decision support at 85.7%-100% sensitivity and 0.35-0.40 FPsI to all six radiologists. Furthermore, context-sensitive CADe system could improve the radiologists' sensitivity and reduce their performance gap more effectively than conventional CADe.
CONCLUSIONS: Context-sensitive CADe support shows promise in delineating and reducing the radiologists' perceptual and cognitive errors in the diagnostic interpretation of screening mammograms more effectively than conventional CADe.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21158284      PMCID: PMC2973989          DOI: 10.1118/1.3501882

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


  27 in total

1.  Multiview-based computer-aided detection scheme for breast masses.

Authors:  Bin Zheng; Joseph K Leader; Gordon S Abrams; Amy H Lu; Luisa P Wallace; Glenn S Maitz; David Gur
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Multireader multicase variance analysis for binary data.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Gene A Pennello; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.129

3.  Information-theoretic CAD system in mammography: entropy-based indexing for computational efficiency and robust performance.

Authors:  Georgia D Tourassi; Brian Harrawood; Swatee Singh; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  One-shot estimate of MRMC variance: AUC.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Computer-aided detection evaluation methods are not created equal.

Authors:  Robert M Nishikawa; Lorenzo L Pesce
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Computer-assisted detection of mammographic masses: a template matching scheme based on mutual information.

Authors:  Georgia D Tourassi; Rene Vargas-Voracek; David M Catarious; Carey E Floyd
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography.

Authors:  Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation?

Authors:  Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses.

Authors:  C F Nodine; H L Kundel; S C Lauver; L C Toto
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  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

View more
  6 in total

1.  Investigating the link between radiologists' gaze, diagnostic decision, and image content.

Authors:  Georgia Tourassi; Sophie Voisin; Vincent Paquit; Elizabeth Krupinski
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 2.  Emerging applications of eye-tracking technology in dermatology.

Authors:  Kevin K John; Jakob D Jensen; Andy J King; Manusheela Pokharel; Douglas Grossman
Journal:  J Dermatol Sci       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 4.563

3.  Mutual information-based template matching scheme for detection of breast masses: from mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Joseph Y Lo; Brian P Harrawood; Georgia D Tourassi
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2011-05-01       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Probabilistic method for context-sensitive detection of polyps in CT colonography.

Authors:  Janne J Näppi; Daniele Regge; Hiroyuki Yoshida
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2011-03-04

5.  The effect of computer-aided detection markers on visual search and reader performance during concurrent reading of CT colonography.

Authors:  Emma Helbren; Thomas R Fanshawe; Peter Phillips; Susan Mallett; Darren Boone; Alastair Gale; Douglas G Altman; Stuart A Taylor; David Manning; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  New approaches to the analysis of eye movement behaviour across expertise while viewing brain MRIs.

Authors:  Emily M Crowe; Iain D Gilchrist; Christopher Kent
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-04-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.