Literature DB >> 22270787

A comparison of logistic regression analysis and an artificial neural network using the BI-RADS lexicon for ultrasonography in conjunction with introbserver variability.

Sun Mi Kim1, Heon Han, Jeong Mi Park, Yoon Jung Choi, Hoi Soo Yoon, Jung Hee Sohn, Moon Hee Baek, Yoon Nam Kim, Young Moon Chae, Jeon Jong June, Jiwon Lee, Yong Hwan Jeon.   

Abstract

To determine which Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors for ultrasound are predictors for breast cancer using logistic regression (LR) analysis in conjunction with interobserver variability between breast radiologists, and to compare the performance of artificial neural network (ANN) and LR models in differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Five breast radiologists retrospectively reviewed 140 breast masses and described each lesion using BI-RADS lexicon and categorized final assessments. Interobserver agreements between the observers were measured by kappa statistics. The radiologists' responses for BI-RADS were pooled. The data were divided randomly into train (n = 70) and test sets (n = 70). Using train set, optimal independent variables were determined by using LR analysis with forward stepwise selection. The LR and ANN models were constructed with the optimal independent variables and the biopsy results as dependent variable. Performances of the models and radiologists were evaluated on the test set using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Among BI-RADS descriptors, margin and boundary were determined as the predictors according to stepwise LR showing moderate interobserver agreement. Area under the ROC curves (AUC) for both of LR and ANN were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77-0.94). AUCs for the five radiologists ranged 0.79-0.91. There was no significant difference in AUC values among the LR, ANN, and radiologists (p > 0.05). Margin and boundary were found as statistically significant predictors with good interobserver agreement. Use of the LR and ANN showed similar performance to that of the radiologists for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22270787      PMCID: PMC3447099          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9457-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  26 in total

1.  Breast US: assessment of technical quality and image interpretation.

Authors:  Jay A Baker; Mary Scott Soo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Artifacts and pitfalls in sonographic imaging of the breast.

Authors:  J A Baker; M S Soo; E L Rosen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.

Authors:  Andrea S Hong; Eric L Rosen; Mary S Soo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes.

Authors:  J V Tu
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions.

Authors:  A T Stavros; D Thickman; C L Rapp; M A Dennis; S H Parker; G A Sisney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Problem-solving ultrasound.

Authors:  Ellen B Mendelson
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-ultrasound, First Edition (2003).

Authors:  Chang Suk Park; Jae Hee Lee; Hyeon Woo Yim; Bong Joo Kang; Hyeon Sook Kim; Jung Im Jung; Na Young Jung; Sung Hun Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.500

View more
  8 in total

1.  Preliminary study of the technical limitations of automated breast ultrasound: from procedure to diagnosis.

Authors:  Maria Julia Gregório Calas; Fernanda Philadelpho Arantes Pereira; Leticia Pereira Gonçalves; Flávia Paiva Proença Lobo Lopes
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct

2.  Classification of breast cancer in ultrasound imaging using a generic deep learning analysis software: a pilot study.

Authors:  Anton S Becker; Michael Mueller; Elina Stoffel; Magda Marcon; Soleen Ghafoor; Andreas Boss
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Comparison of Breast Cancer Screening Results in Korean Middle-Aged Women: A Hospital-based Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Taebum Lee
Journal:  Osong Public Health Res Perspect       Date:  2013-06-27

4.  Logistic LASSO regression for the diagnosis of breast cancer using clinical demographic data and the BI-RADS lexicon for ultrasonography.

Authors:  Sun Mi Kim; Yongdai Kim; Kuhwan Jeong; Heeyeong Jeong; Jiyoung Kim
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-04-14

5.  Comparison of three data mining models for prediction of advanced schistosomiasis prognosis in the Hubei province.

Authors:  Guo Li; Xiaorong Zhou; Jianbing Liu; Yuanqi Chen; Hengtao Zhang; Yanyan Chen; Jianhua Liu; Hongbo Jiang; Junjing Yang; Shaofa Nie
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2018-02-15

6.  Development of a computer-aided tool for the pattern recognition of facial features in diagnosing Turner syndrome: comparison of diagnostic accuracy with clinical workers.

Authors:  Shi Chen; Zhou-Xian Pan; Hui-Juan Zhu; Qing Wang; Ji-Jiang Yang; Yi Lei; Jian-Qiang Li; Hui Pan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning in medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ravi Aggarwal; Viknesh Sounderajah; Guy Martin; Daniel S W Ting; Alan Karthikesalingam; Dominic King; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2021-04-07

8.  The importance of multi-modal imaging and clinical information for humans and AI-based algorithms to classify breast masses (INSPiRED 003): an international, multicenter analysis.

Authors:  André Pfob; Chris Sidey-Gibbons; Richard G Barr; Volker Duda; Zaher Alwafai; Corinne Balleyguier; Dirk-André Clevert; Sarah Fastner; Christina Gomez; Manuela Goncalo; Ines Gruber; Markus Hahn; André Hennigs; Panagiotis Kapetas; Sheng-Chieh Lu; Juliane Nees; Ralf Ohlinger; Fabian Riedel; Matthieu Rutten; Benedikt Schaefgen; Maximilian Schuessler; Anne Stieber; Riku Togawa; Mitsuhiro Tozaki; Sebastian Wojcinski; Cai Xu; Geraldine Rauch; Joerg Heil; Michael Golatta
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 7.034

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.