...
首页> 外文期刊>European Radiology >Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?
【24h】

Does a computer-aided detection algorithm in a second read paradigm enhance the performance of experienced computed tomography colonography readers in a population of increased risk?

机译:在二次阅读范例中,计算机辅助检测算法​​是否可以在风险增加的人群中提高经验丰富的计算机断层摄影结肠X线摄影阅读器的性能?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

We prospectively determined whether computer-aided detection (CAD) could improve the performance characteristics of computed tomography colonography (CTC) in a population of increased risk for colorectal cancer. Therefore, we included 170 consecutive patients that underwent both CTC and colonoscopy. All findings ≥6 mm were evaluated at colonoscopy by segmental unblinding. We determined per-patient sensitivity and specificity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm without and with computer-aided detection (CAD). The McNemar test was used for comparison the results without and with CAD. Unblinded colonoscopy detected 50 patients with lesions ≥6 mm and 25 patients with lesions ≥10 mm. Sensitivity of CTC without CAD for these size categories was 80% (40/50, 95% CI: 69–81%) and 64% (16/25, 95% CI: 45–83%), respectively. CTC with CAD detected one additional patient with a lesion ≥6 mm and two with a lesion ≥10 mm, resulting in a sensitivity of 82% (41/50, 95% CI: 71–93%) (p = 0.50) and 72% (18/25, 95% CI: 54–90%) (p = 1.0), respectively. Specificity without CAD for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% (101/120, 95% CI: 78–91%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90–98%), respectively. With CAD, the specificity remained (nearly) unchanged: 83% (99/120, 95% CI: 76–89%) and 94% (136/145, 95% CI: 90–98%), respectively. Thus, although CTC with CAD detected a few more patients than CTC without CAD, it had no statistically significant positive influence on CTC performance.
机译:我们前瞻性地确定了计算机辅助检测(CAD)是否可以改善大肠癌风险增加人群中计算机断层扫描结肠造影(CTC)的性能特征。因此,我们纳入了170例同时接受CTC和结肠镜检查的患者。所有≥6 mm的发现均在结肠镜检查中通过节段性失明进行评估。我们确定了不使用计算机辅助检测(CAD)的息肉≥6mm和≥10mm的每位患者的敏感性和特异性。 McNemar测试用于比较不使用CAD和使用CAD的结果。非盲肠镜检查发现50例病灶≥6 mm的患者和25例病灶≥10 mm的患者。对于这些尺寸类别,不含CAD的CTC的敏感性分别为80%(40 / 50,95%CI:69-81%)和64%(16 / 25,95%CI:45-83%)。带有CAD的CTC检测到另外一名病灶≥6 mm的患者和两名病灶≥10 mm的患者,其敏感性为82%(41/50,95%CI:71–93%)(p = 0.50)和72 %(18/25,95%CI:54–90%)(p = 1.0)。没有CAD的息肉≥6mm和≥10mm的特异性分别为84%(101/120,95%CI:78–91%)和94%(136/145,95%CI:90–98%)。使用CAD时,特异性保持(几乎)不变:分别为83%(99 / 120,95%CI:76-89%)和94%(136 / 145,95%CI:90-98%)。因此,尽管具有CAD的CTC会比没有CAD的CTC检测到更多的患者,但对CTC的性能没有统计学上显着的积极影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号