Literature DB >> 30819048

A Probabilistic Model to Support Radiologists' Classification Decisions in Mammography Practice.

Jiaming Zeng1, Francisco Gimenez2, Elizabeth S Burnside3, Daniel L Rubin2, Ross Shachter1.   

Abstract

We developed a probabilistic model to support the classification decisions made by radiologists in mammography practice. Using the feature observations and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classifications from radiologists examining diagnostic and screening mammograms, we modeled their decisions to understand their judgments. Our model could help improve the decisions made by radiologists using their own feature observations and classifications while maintaining their observed sensitivities. Based on 112,433 mammographic cases from 36,111 patients and 13 radiologists at 2 separate institutions with a 1.1% prevalence of malignancy, we trained a probabilistic Bayesian network (BN) to estimate the malignancy probabilities of lesions. For each radiologist, we learned an observed probabilistic threshold within the model. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of each radiologist against the BN model using either their observed threshold or the standard 2% threshold recommended by BI-RADS. We found significant variability among the radiologists' observed thresholds. By applying the observed thresholds, the BN model showed a 0.01% (1 case) increase in false negatives and a 28.9% (3612 cases) reduction in false positives. When using the standard 2% BI-RADS-recommended threshold, there was a 26.7% (47 cases) increase in false negatives and a 47.3% (5911 cases) reduction in false positives. Our results show that we can significantly reduce screening mammography false positives with a minimal increase in false negatives. We find that learning radiologists' observed thresholds provides valuable information regarding the conservativeness of clinical practice and allows us to quantify the variability in sensitivity across and within institutions. Our model could provide support to radiologists to improve their performance and consistency within mammography practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  classification decision; decision support; mammography; observed threshold

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30819048      PMCID: PMC6529223          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19832914

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  24 in total

1.  A Bayesian network for mammography.

Authors:  E Burnside; D Rubin; R Shachter
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2000

2.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS).

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Jennifer H Menell
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 3.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

Authors:  Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Simple improved confidence intervals for comparing matched proportions.

Authors:  Alan Agresti; Yongyi Min
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Bayesian networks: computer-assisted diagnosis support in radiology.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Computer-aided diagnosis: the emerging of three CAD systems induced by Japanese health care needs.

Authors:  Hiroshi Fujita; Yoshikazu Uchiyama; Toshiaki Nakagawa; Daisuke Fukuoka; Yuji Hatanaka; Takeshi Hara; Gobert N Lee; Yoshinori Hayashi; Yuji Ikedo; Xin Gao; Xiangrong Zhou
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2008-06-02       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 7.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to reduce variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications.

Authors:  Y Jiang; R M Nishikawa; R A Schmidt; A Y Toledano; K Doi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Connie Y Nakano; Thomas D Koepsell; Laurel M Desnick; Carl J D'Orsi; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-09-17       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen Taplin; Linn Abraham; William E Barlow; Joshua J Fenton; Eric A Berns; Patricia A Carney; Gary R Cutter; Edward A Sickles; D'Orsi Carl; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-06-10       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Advancements in Oncology with Artificial Intelligence-A Review Article.

Authors:  Nikitha Vobugari; Vikranth Raja; Udhav Sethi; Kejal Gandhi; Kishore Raja; Salim R Surani
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-06       Impact factor: 6.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.