C-H Liang1, Y-C Liu2, M-T Wu3, F Garcia-Castro4, A Alberich-Bayarri4, F-Z Wu5. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Xiamen Chang Gung Hospital, China. 3. Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Radiology, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 4. Radiology Department, Hospital Universitarioy Polite'cnico La Fe and Biomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230), Valencia, Spain; QUIBIM SL, Valencia, Spain. 5. Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Radiology, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Electronic address: cmvwu1029@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: To test the diagnostic performance of a deep learning-based system for the detection of clinically significant pulmonary nodules/masses on chest radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a retrospective study of 100 patients (47 with clinically significant pulmonary nodules/masses and 53 control subjects without pulmonary nodules), two radiologists verified clinically significantly pulmonary nodules/masses according to chest computed tomography (CT) findings. A computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) software using a deep-learning approach was used to detect pulmonary nodules/masses to determine the diagnostic performance in four algorithms (heat map, abnormal probability, nodule probability, and mass probability). RESULTS: A total of 100 cases were included in the analysis. Among the four algorithms, mass algorithm could achieve a 76.6% sensitivity (36/47, 11 false negative) and 88.68% specificity (47/53, six false-positive) in the detection of pulmonary nodules/masses at the optimal probability score cut-off of 0.2884. Compared to the other three algorithms, mass probability algorithm had best predictive ability for pulmonary nodule/mass detection at the optimal probability score cut-off of 0.2884 (AUCMass: 0.916 versus AUCHeat map: 0.682, p<0.001; AUCMass: 0.916 versus AUCAbnormal: 0.810, p=0.002; AUCMass: 0.916 versus AUCNodule: 0.813, p=0.014). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the deep-learning based computer-aided diagnosis system will likely play a vital role in the early detection and diagnosis of pulmonary nodules/masses on chest radiographs. In future applications, these algorithms could support triage workflow via double reading to improve sensitivity and specificity during the diagnostic process.
AIM: To test the diagnostic performance of a deep learning-based system for the detection of clinically significant pulmonary nodules/masses on chest radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a retrospective study of 100 patients (47 with clinically significant pulmonary nodules/masses and 53 control subjects without pulmonary nodules), two radiologists verified clinically significantly pulmonary nodules/masses according to chest computed tomography (CT) findings. A computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) software using a deep-learning approach was used to detect pulmonary nodules/masses to determine the diagnostic performance in four algorithms (heat map, abnormal probability, nodule probability, and mass probability). RESULTS: A total of 100 cases were included in the analysis. Among the four algorithms, mass algorithm could achieve a 76.6% sensitivity (36/47, 11 false negative) and 88.68% specificity (47/53, six false-positive) in the detection of pulmonary nodules/masses at the optimal probability score cut-off of 0.2884. Compared to the other three algorithms, mass probability algorithm had best predictive ability for pulmonary nodule/mass detection at the optimal probability score cut-off of 0.2884 (AUCMass: 0.916 versus AUCHeat map: 0.682, p<0.001; AUCMass: 0.916 versus AUCAbnormal: 0.810, p=0.002; AUCMass: 0.916 versus AUCNodule: 0.813, p=0.014). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the deep-learning based computer-aided diagnosis system will likely play a vital role in the early detection and diagnosis of pulmonary nodules/masses on chest radiographs. In future applications, these algorithms could support triage workflow via double reading to improve sensitivity and specificity during the diagnostic process.
Authors: Alan A Peters; Amanda Decasper; Jaro Munz; Jeremias Klaus; Laura I Loebelenz; Maximilian Korbinian Michael Hoffner; Cynthia Hourscht; Johannes T Heverhagen; Andreas Christe; Lukas Ebner Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 3.005
Authors: Alan A Peters; Adrian T Huber; Verena C Obmann; Johannes T Heverhagen; Andreas Christe; Lukas Ebner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ravi Aggarwal; Viknesh Sounderajah; Guy Martin; Daniel S W Ting; Alan Karthikesalingam; Dominic King; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Catherine M Jones; Luke Danaher; Michael R Milne; Cyril Tang; Jarrel Seah; Luke Oakden-Rayner; Andrew Johnson; Quinlan D Buchlak; Nazanin Esmaili Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Fatemeh Homayounieh; Subba Digumarthy; Shadi Ebrahimian; Johannes Rueckel; Boj Friedrich Hoppe; Bastian Oliver Sabel; Sailesh Conjeti; Karsten Ridder; Markus Sistermanns; Lei Wang; Alexander Preuhs; Florin Ghesu; Awais Mansoor; Mateen Moghbel; Ariel Botwin; Ramandeep Singh; Samuel Cartmell; John Patti; Christian Huemmer; Andreas Fieselmann; Clemens Joerger; Negar Mirshahzadeh; Victorine Muse; Mannudeep Kalra Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Jerry M Spiegel; Rodney Ehrlich; Annalee Yassi; Francisco Riera; James Wilkinson; Karen Lockhart; Stephen Barker; Barry Kistnasamy Journal: Ann Glob Health Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.462