PURPOSE: To develop and validate a decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on a standardized descriptor terminology (BI-RADS lexicon) to reduce variability of practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used separate training data (1,276 lesions, 138 malignant) and validation data (1,177 lesions, 175 malignant). We created naïve Bayes (NB) classifiers from the training data with tenfold cross-validation. Our "inclusive model" comprised BI-RADS categories, BI-RADS descriptors, and age as predictive variables; our "descriptor model" comprised BI-RADS descriptors and age. The resulting NB classifiers were applied to the validation data. We evaluated and compared classifier performance with ROC-analysis. RESULTS: In the training data, the inclusive model yields an AUC of 0.959; the descriptor model yields an AUC of 0.910 (P < 0.001). The inclusive model is superior to the clinical performance (BI-RADS categories alone, P < 0.001); the descriptor model performs similarly. When applied to the validation data, the inclusive model yields an AUC of 0.935; the descriptor model yields an AUC of 0.876 (P < 0.001). Again, the inclusive model is superior to the clinical performance (P < 0.001); the descriptor model performs similarly. CONCLUSION: We consider our classifier a step towards a more uniform interpretation of combinations of BI-RADS descriptors. We provide our classifier at www.ebm-radiology.com/nbmm/index.html . KEY POINTS: • We provide a decision support tool for mammographic masses at www.ebm-radiology.com/nbmm/index.html . • Our tool may reduce variability of practice in BI-RADS category assignment. • A formal analysis of BI-RADS descriptors may enhance radiologists' diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on a standardized descriptor terminology (BI-RADS lexicon) to reduce variability of practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used separate training data (1,276 lesions, 138 malignant) and validation data (1,177 lesions, 175 malignant). We created naïve Bayes (NB) classifiers from the training data with tenfold cross-validation. Our "inclusive model" comprised BI-RADS categories, BI-RADS descriptors, and age as predictive variables; our "descriptor model" comprised BI-RADS descriptors and age. The resulting NB classifiers were applied to the validation data. We evaluated and compared classifier performance with ROC-analysis. RESULTS: In the training data, the inclusive model yields an AUC of 0.959; the descriptor model yields an AUC of 0.910 (P < 0.001). The inclusive model is superior to the clinical performance (BI-RADS categories alone, P < 0.001); the descriptor model performs similarly. When applied to the validation data, the inclusive model yields an AUC of 0.935; the descriptor model yields an AUC of 0.876 (P < 0.001). Again, the inclusive model is superior to the clinical performance (P < 0.001); the descriptor model performs similarly. CONCLUSION: We consider our classifier a step towards a more uniform interpretation of combinations of BI-RADS descriptors. We provide our classifier at www.ebm-radiology.com/nbmm/index.html . KEY POINTS: • We provide a decision support tool for mammographic masses at www.ebm-radiology.com/nbmm/index.html . • Our tool may reduce variability of practice in BI-RADS category assignment. • A formal analysis of BI-RADS descriptors may enhance radiologists' diagnostic performance.
Authors: Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Carl J D'Orsi; Valerie P Jackson; Lawrence W Bassett; Craig A Beam; Rebecca S Lewis; Philip E Crewson Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J M H Timmers; A L M Verbeek; J IntHout; R M Pijnappel; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maria J Garcia-Velloso; Maria J Ribelles; Macarena Rodriguez; Alejandro Fernandez-Montero; Lidia Sancho; Elena Prieto; Marta Santisteban; Natalia Rodriguez-Spiteri; Miguel A Idoate; Fernando Martinez-Regueira; Arlette Elizalde; Luis J Pina Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 5.315