|
|
||||||||
1 All authors: Department of Radiology, Imaging Research, Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket St., Ste. 4200, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3180.
OBJECTIVE. We assessed performance changes of a mammographic computer-aided detection scheme when we restricted the maximum number of regions that could be identified (cued) as showing positive findings in each case.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. A computer-aided detection scheme was applied to 500 cases (or 2,000 images), including 300 cases in which mammograms showed verified malignant masses. We evaluated the overall case-based performance of the scheme using a free-response receiver operating characteristic approach, and we measured detection sensitivity at a fixed false-positive detection rate of 0.4 per image after gradually reducing the maximum number of cued regions allowed for each case from seven to one.
RESULTS. The original computer-aided detection scheme achieved a maximum case-based sensitivity of 97% at 3.3 false-positive detected regions per image. For a detection decision score set at 0.565, the scheme had a 79% (237/300) case-based sensitivity, with 0.4 false-positive detected regions per image. After limiting the number of maximum allowed cued regions per case, the false-positive rates decreased faster than the true-positive rates. At a maximum of two cued regions per case, the false-positive rate decreased from 0.4 to 0.21 per image, whereas detection sensitivity decreased from 237 to 220 masses. To maintain sensitivity at 79%, we reduced the detection decision score to as low as 0.36, which resulted in a reduction of false-positive detected regions from 0.4 to 0.3 per image and a reduction in region-based sensitivity from 66.1% to 61.4%.
CONCLUSION. Limiting the maximum number of cued regions per case can improve the overall case-based performance of computer-aided detection schemes in mammography.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. A. Baker, E. L. Rosen, M. M. Crockett, and J. Y. Lo Accuracy of Segmentation of a Commercial Computer-aided Detection System for Mammography Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 385 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. A. Obuchowski ROC Analysis Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 364 - 372. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Gur, J. S. Stalder, L. A. Hardesty, B. Zheng, J. H. Sumkin, D. M. Chough, B. E. Shindel, and H. E. Rockette Computer-aided Detection Performance in Mammographic Examination of Masses: Assessment Radiology, November 1, 2004; 233(2): 418 - 423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |