Literature DB >> 25576230

Development of an online, publicly accessible naive Bayesian decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS lexicon.

Matthias Benndorf1, Elmar Kotter, Mathias Langer, Christoph Herda, Yirong Wu, Elizabeth S Burnside.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25576230      PMCID: PMC4420692          DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3570-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  26 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Everything you always wanted to know about evaluating prediction models (but were too afraid to ask).

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  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

4.  ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R.

Authors:  Tobias Sing; Oliver Sander; Niko Beerenwinkel; Thomas Lengauer
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Bayesian networks of BI-RADStrade mark descriptors for breast lesion classification.

Authors:  E A Fischer; J Y Lo; M K Markey
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2004

6.  Coding mammograms using the classification "probably benign finding--short interval follow-up suggested".

Authors:  L S Caplan; D Blackman; M Nadel; D L Monticciolo
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?

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

Review 8.  CADx of mammographic masses and clustered microcalcifications: a review.

Authors:  Matthias Elter; Alexander Horsch
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings.

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

10.  A comprehensive evaluation of family history and breast cancer risk. The Utah Population Database.

Authors:  M L Slattery; R A Kerber
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-10-06       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  10 in total

1.  External validation of a publicly available computer assisted diagnostic tool for mammographic mass lesions with two high prevalence research datasets.

Authors:  Matthias Benndorf; Elizabeth S Burnside; Christoph Herda; Mathias Langer; Elmar Kotter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Automated annotation and classification of BI-RADS assessment from radiology reports.

Authors:  Sergio M Castro; Eugene Tseytlin; Olga Medvedeva; Kevin Mitchell; Shyam Visweswaran; Tanja Bekhuis; Rebecca S Jacobson
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  MRI fused with prone FDG PET/CT improves the primary tumour staging of patients with breast cancer.

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

4.  Applying Data Mining Techniques to Improve Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Joana Diz; Goreti Marreiros; Alberto Freitas
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 4.460

5.  Breast Imaging in the Era of Big Data: Structured Reporting and Data Mining.

Authors:  Laurie R Margolies; Gaurav Pandey; Eliot R Horowitz; David S Mendelson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Applying Naive Bayesian Networks to Disease Prediction: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Mostafa Langarizadeh; Fateme Moghbeli
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2016-11-01

Review 7.  Involvement of Machine Learning for Breast Cancer Image Classification: A Survey.

Authors:  Abdullah-Al Nahid; Yinan Kong
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2017-12-31       Impact factor: 2.238

8.  Enhancing ontology-driven diagnostic reasoning with a symptom-dependency-aware Naïve Bayes classifier.

Authors:  Ying Shen; Yaliang Li; Hai-Tao Zheng; Buzhou Tang; Min Yang
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Bayesian Approach to Predicting Acute Appendicitis Using Ultrasonographic and Clinical Variables in Children.

Authors:  Tristan Reddan; Jonathan Corness; Fiona Harden; Wenbiao Hu; Kerrie Mengersen
Journal:  Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2019-07-31

10.  Effectiveness of the clinical decision support tool ESR eGUIDE for teaching medical students the appropriate selection of imaging tests: randomized cross-over evaluation.

Authors:  Torsten Diekhoff; Franz Kainberger; Laura Oleaga; Marc Dewey; Elke Zimmermann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.