| Literature DB >> 25830608 |
Selvaraj Rani Bhavani1, Jagatheesan Senthilkumar, Arul Gnanaprakasam Chilambuchelvan, Dhanabalachandran Manjula, Ramasamy Krishnamoorthy, Arputharaj Kannan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Internet has greatly enhanced health care, helping patients stay up-to-date on medical issues and general knowledge. Many cancer patients use the Internet for cancer diagnosis and related information. Recently, cloud computing has emerged as a new way of delivering health services but currently, there is no generic and fully automated cloud-based self-management intervention for breast cancer patients, as practical guidelines are lacking.Entities:
Keywords: SOAP; UDDI; Web-based intervention; association rules; breast cancer; cloud computing; feature extraction; intelligent system; medical diagnosis; pre-processing; segmentation
Year: 2015 PMID: 25830608 PMCID: PMC4393505 DOI: 10.2196/medinform.3709
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Med Inform
Figure 1Intelligent Internet Medical Research Group.
Figure 2The proposed CIMIDx architecture.
Figure 3Pipeline of the proposed CIMIDx prototype.
Figure 4Equations (1) and (2).
Figure 5Example to show the calculation of Associative Medical Image Diagnosis Engine (AMIDE) in Condition 1.
Figure 6Example to show the calculation of Associative Medical Image Diagnosis Engine (AMIDE) in Condition 2.
Figure 7The AMIDE Algorithm.
BI-RADSa assessment categorization.
| Category | Description |
| 0 | Need additional imaging evaluation. |
| 1 | Negative. |
| 2 | Benign finding. |
| 3 | Probably benign finding. (Less than 2% malignant.) Short interval follow-up suggested. |
| 4 | Suspicious abnormality. (2-95% malignant.) Biopsy should be considered. |
| 5 | Highly suggestive of malignancy. (Greater than 2% malignant.) Appropriate action should be taken. |
aBreast Imaging Reporting and Data System
The classification accuracy of the proposed CIMIDx cloud services model with 150 client test images during the development of CIMIDx, and compared with the Naïve Bayes and C4.5 classification algorithms and IDEA method (n=150).a
| Stages | Naïve Bayes | C4.5 | IDEA Method | CIMIDx Method | ||||
| Diagnosed | Missed | Diagnosed | Missed | Diagnosed | Missed | Diagnosed | Missed | |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Normal breast issue | 6 (4.0) | 3 (2.0) | 7 (4.7) | 2 (1.3) | 7 (4.7) | 2 (1.3) | 8 (5.3) | 1 (0.7) |
| Fibrocystic disease | 4 (2.7) | 1 (0.7) | 4 (2.7) | 1 (0.7) | 4 (2.7) | 1 (0.7) | 5 (3.3) | 0 |
| Fibro adenoma | 7 (4.7) | 3 (2.0) | 8 (5.3) | 2 (1.3) | 9 (6.0) | 1 (0.7) | 9 (6.0) | 1 (0.7) |
| Atypical ductal hyperplasia | 4 (2.7) | 1 (0.7) | 4 (2.7) | 1 (0.7) | 5 (3.3) | 0 | 5 (3.3) | 0 |
| Benign lesion, other | 3 (2.0) | 0 | 3 (2.0) | 0 | 3 (2.0) | 0 | 3 (2.0) | 0 |
| DCISb, | 8 (5.3) | 7 (4.7) | 11 (7.3) | 4 (2.7) | 13 (8.7) | 2 (1.3) | 14 (9.3) | 1 (0.7) |
| DCIS | 23 (15.3) | 9 (6.0) | 26 (17.3) | 6 (4.0) | 31 (20.7) | 1 (0.7) | 32 (21.3) | 0 |
| IDCc | 42 (28.0) | 3 (2.0) | 42 (28.0) | 3 (2.0) | 44 (29.3) | 0 | 44 (29.3) | 0 |
| ILCd | 16 (10.7) | 2 (1.3) | 16 (10.7) | 2 (1.3) | 18 (12.0) | 1 (0.7) | 19 (12.7) | 0 |
| ILC & IDC | 4 (2.7) | 1 (0.7) | 5 (3.3) | 0 | 5 (3.3) | 0 | 5 (3.3) | 0 |
| Malignant lesion, other | 3 (2.0) | 0 | 3 (2.0) | 0 | 3 (2.0) | 0 | 3 (2.0) | 0 |
| Total | 120 (80.0) | 30 (20.0) | 129 (86.0) | 21 (14.0) | 142 (94.7) | 8 (5.3) | 147 (98.0) | 3(2.0) |
aAt interviews with various medical colleges and hospitals in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, May 2013 to April 2014, the cloud-based system support intelligent medical image diagnosis prototype was used for breast health issues. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, and false negative rate results in percentage were calculated, with the true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative measures.
bDCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ
cIDC: invasive ductal cancer
dILC: invasive lobular cancer
Figure 8Implementation details of the CIMIDx framework.
Characteristics of 150 women with breast cancer.
| Demographic variable | Category | Use of CIMIDx by patients | Use of CIMIDx by radiologist | Significance ( | |
| mean (SD) or n (%) | mean (SD) or n (%) | ||||
| Age (years) |
|
| 47.5 (33.2) | 26 (18.4) | .53 |
| Time since diagnosis (years) |
|
| 47.5 (40.3) | 26 (21.2) | .59 |
|
| |||||
|
|
| <1,00,000 | 12 (12.4%) |
|
|
|
|
| 1,00,000-2,70,000 | 36 (37.1%) |
|
|
|
|
| >2,70,000 | 49 (50.5%) |
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| Grades <12 | 13 (13.4%) |
|
|
|
|
| Grades 13-15 | 48 (49.5%) |
|
|
|
|
| Grades >15 | 36 (37.1%) |
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
| Normal breast issue | 8 (8.3%) | 1 (1.9%) | .57 |
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| Fibrocystic disease | 3 (3.1%) | 2 (3.8%) |
|
|
|
| Fibroadenoma | 6 (6.2%) | 4 (7.6%) |
|
|
|
| Atypical ductal hyperplasia | 3 (3.1%) | 2 (3.8%) |
|
|
|
| Benign lesion, other | 1 (1.0%) | 2 (3.8%) |
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| DCISb, grade I | 9 (9.3%) | 6 (11.3%) | >.99 |
|
|
| DCIS grade II and III | 26 (26.8%) | 6 (11.3%) |
|
|
|
| IDCc | 24 (24.7%) | 20 (37.7%) |
|
|
|
| ILCd | 12 (12.4%) | 7 (13.2%) |
|
|
|
| ILC and IDC | 3 (3.1%) | 2 (3.8%) |
|
|
|
| Malignant lesion, others | 2 (2.1%) | 1 (1.9%) |
|
aAt interviews with different medical colleges and hospitals in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, May 2013 to April 2014, the cloud-based system support intelligent medical image diagnosis prototype was used for breast health issues. The P values were calculated with t tests for the means, and the Pearson chi-Square tests for the percentages.
bDCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ
cIDC: invasive ductal cancer
dILC: invasive lobular cancer
Predictors of CIMIDx use of 150 women with breast cancer.
| Stages | Category | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | Significance ( | |
| Age (years) |
|
| 1.93 | 0.51-7.34 | .89 |
| Time since diagnosis (years) |
|
| 0.19 | 0.07-0.53 | .89 |
|
| |||||
|
|
| <1,00,000 | 1.00 |
|
|
|
|
| 1,00,000-2,70,000 | 2.44 | 0.19-31.53 | .48 |
|
|
| >2,70,000 | 0.89 | 0.18-4.36 | .89 |
|
| |||||
|
|
| Grades <12 | 1.00 |
|
|
|
|
| Grades 13-15 | 1.05 | 0.16-6.92 | .96 |
|
|
| Grades >15 | 0.92 | 0.34-2.45 | .86 |
|
| |||||
|
|
| Normal breast issue | 1.00 |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| Fibrocystic disease | 0.5 | 0.01-19.56 | .71 |
|
|
| Fibroadenoma | 1.5 | 0.09-25.39 | .78 |
|
|
| Atypical ductal hyperplasia | 0.5 | 0.01-19.56 | .71 |
|
|
| Benign lesion, other | - | - | .39 |
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| DCISb, grade I | 1.00 |
|
|
|
|
| DCIS grade II and III | 0.48 | 0.07-3.37 | .45 |
|
|
| IDCc | 1.33 | 0.32-5.59 | .69 |
|
|
| ILCd | 0.88 | 0.10-6.78 | .86 |
|
|
| ILC and IDC | 0.5 | 0.01-19.56 | .71 |
|
|
| Malignant lesion, other | - | - | .39 |
aFrom interviews at various medical colleges and hospitals in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, May 2013 to April 2014, regarding the cloud-based system support intelligent medical image diagnosis prototype used for breast health issues, the P values were calculated with t tests for the means, and the Pearson chi-Square tests for the percentages.
bDCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ
cIDC: invasive ductal cancer
dILC: invasive lobular cancer
Group characteristics (social, economic, and the usefulness of the CIMIDx prototype for the two user groups).
| Characteristics | Category | Users (n=97) | Significance ( | |
| Use of CIMIDx by low user (n=44) | Use of CIMIDx by high user (n=53) | |||
| mean (SD) or n (%) | mean (SD) or n (%) | |||
| Age (years) |
| 22 (22.6) | 26.5 (31.8) | .89a |
| Time since diagnosis (years) |
| 22 (24.0) | 26.5 (33.2) | .89a |
|
| ||||
|
| <1,00,000 | 4 (9.1) | 6 (11.3) | .78b |
|
| 1,00,000-2,70,000 | 11 (25.0) | 12 (22.6) | .48b |
|
| >2,70,000 | 29 (66.0) | 35 (66.0) | .89b |
|
| ||||
|
| Grades <12 | 5 (11.4) | 8 (15.1) | .93b |
|
| Grades 13-15 | 8 (18.2) | 11 (20.7) | .96b |
|
| Grades >15 | 31 (70.5) | 34 (64.2) | .86b |
|
| ||||
|
| Good | 39 (88.6) | 51 (96.2) | .89b |
|
| Average | 5 (11.4) | 2 (3.7) | .81b |
|
| ||||
|
| Good | 41 (93.2) | 49 (92.5) | .77b |
|
| Average | 3 (6.8) | 4 (7.5) | .81b |
|
| ||||
|
| Good | 42 (95.5) | 51 (96.2) | .77b |
|
| Average | 1 (2.3) | 2 (3.7) | .39b |
|
| ||||
|
| Good | 43 (97.7) | 52 (98.1) | .31b |
|
| Average | 1 (2.3) | 1 (1.9) | .99b |
|
| ||||
|
| Good | 42 (95.5) | 52 (98.1) | .31b |
|
| Average | 2 (4.5) | 1 (1.9) | .39b |
a t test
bPearson chi-square test
cFrom the interviews at various medical colleges and hospitals in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, May 2013 to April 2014, regarding the cloud-based system support intelligent medical image diagnosis prototype used for breast health issues, the P values were calculated with t tests for the means, and the Pearson chi-Square tests for the percentages.