Yukihiro Nomura1, Naoto Hayashi2, Shouhei Hanaoka3, Tomomi Takenaga2, Mitsutaka Nemoto4, Soichiro Miki2, Takeharu Yoshikawa2, Osamu Abe3. 1. Department of Computational Diagnostic Radiology and Preventive Medicine, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. nomuray-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Computational Diagnostic Radiology and Preventive Medicine, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. 4. Faculty of Biology-Oriented Science and Technology, Kindai University, Nishimitani 930, Kinokawa, Wakayama, 649-6493, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For the development of computer-assisted detection (CAD) software using voxel-based classification, gold standards defined by pixel-by-pixel painting, called painted gold standards, are desirable. However, for radiologists who define gold standards, a simplified method of definition is desirable. One of the simplest methods of defining gold standards is a spherical region, called a spherical gold standard. In this study, we investigated whether spherical gold standards can be used as an alternative to painted gold standards for computerized detection using voxel-based classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The spherical gold standards were determined by the center of gravity and the maximum diameter. We compared two types of gold standard, painted gold standards and spherical gold standards, by two types of CAD software using voxel-based classification. RESULTS: The time required to paint the area of one lesion was 4.7-6.5 times longer than the time required to define a spherical gold standard. For the same performance of the CAD software, the number of training cases required for the spherical gold standard was 1.6-7.6 times that for the painted gold standards. CONCLUSION: Spherical gold standards can be used as an alternative to painted gold standards for the computerized detection of lesions with simple shapes.
PURPOSE: For the development of computer-assisted detection (CAD) software using voxel-based classification, gold standards defined by pixel-by-pixel painting, called painted gold standards, are desirable. However, for radiologists who define gold standards, a simplified method of definition is desirable. One of the simplest methods of defining gold standards is a spherical region, called a spherical gold standard. In this study, we investigated whether spherical gold standards can be used as an alternative to painted gold standards for computerized detection using voxel-based classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The spherical gold standards were determined by the center of gravity and the maximum diameter. We compared two types of gold standard, painted gold standards and spherical gold standards, by two types of CAD software using voxel-based classification. RESULTS: The time required to paint the area of one lesion was 4.7-6.5 times longer than the time required to define a spherical gold standard. For the same performance of the CAD software, the number of training cases required for the spherical gold standard was 1.6-7.6 times that for the painted gold standards. CONCLUSION: Spherical gold standards can be used as an alternative to painted gold standards for the computerized detection of lesions with simple shapes.
Authors: Jan-Martin Kuhnigk; Volker Dicken; Lars Bornemann; Annemarie Bakai; Dag Wormanns; Stefan Krass; Heinz-Otto Peitgen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc Bidaut; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Charles R Meyer; Anthony P Reeves; Binsheng Zhao; Denise R Aberle; Claudia I Henschke; Eric A Hoffman; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R Van Beeke; David Yankelevitz; Alberto M Biancardi; Peyton H Bland; Matthew S Brown; Roger M Engelmann; Gary E Laderach; Daniel Max; Richard C Pais; David P Y Qing; Rachael Y Roberts; Amanda R Smith; Adam Starkey; Poonam Batrah; Philip Caligiuri; Ali Farooqi; Gregory W Gladish; C Matilda Jude; Reginald F Munden; Iva Petkovska; Leslie E Quint; Lawrence H Schwartz; Baskaran Sundaram; Lori E Dodd; Charles Fenimore; David Gur; Nicholas Petrick; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Brian Hughes; Alessi Vande Casteele; Sangeeta Gupte; Maha Sallamm; Michael D Heath; Michael H Kuhn; Ekta Dharaiya; Richard Burns; David S Fryd; Marcos Salganicoff; Vikram Anand; Uri Shreter; Stephen Vastagh; Barbara Y Croft Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071