首页> 外文OA文献 >True Detection Versus “Accidental” Detection of Small Lung Cancer by a Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) Program on Chest Radiographs
【2h】

True Detection Versus “Accidental” Detection of Small Lung Cancer by a Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) Program on Chest Radiographs

机译:通过胸部X射线计算机辅助检测(CAD)程序对小肺癌进行真正检测与“意外”检测

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

To evaluate the number of actual detections versus “accidental” detections by a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for small nodular lung cancers (≤30 mm) on chest radiographs, using two different criteria for measuring performance. A Food-and-Drug-Administration-approved CAD program (version 1.0; Riverain Medical) was applied to 34 chest radiographs with a “radiologist-missed” nodular cancer and 36 radiographs with a radiologist-mentioned nodule (a newer version 3.0 was also applied to the 36-case database). The marks applied by this CAD system consisted of 5-cm-diameter circles. A strict “nodule-in-center” criterion and a generous “nodule-in-circle” criterion were compared as methods for the calculation of CAD sensitivity. The increased sensitivities by the nodule-in-circle criterion were considered as nodules detected by chance. The number of false-positive (FP) marks was also analyzed. For the 34 radiologist-missed cancers, the nodule-in-circle criterion caused eight more cancers (24%) to be detected by chance, as compared to the nodule-in-center criterion, when using the version 1.0 results. For the 36 radiologist-mentioned nodules, the nodule-in-circle criterion caused seven more lesions (19%) to be detected by chance, as compared to the nodule-in-center criterion, when using the version 1.0 results, and three more lesions (8%) to be detected by chance when using the version 3.0 results. Version 1.0 yielded a mean of six FP marks per image, while version 3.0 yielded only three FP marks per image. The specific criteria used to define true- and false-positive CAD detections can substantially influence the apparent accuracy of a CAD system.
机译:为了评估在胸部X光片上通过计算机辅助检测(CAD)系统对小结节性肺癌(≤30mm)的实际检测数与“意外”检测数的比较,使用两种不同的测量性能标准。经食品和药物管理局批准的CAD程序(1.0版; Riverain Medical)应用于“放射医师遗漏”的结节性癌的34幅胸部X线片和放射学家提到的结节的36幅放射线片(也使用了更新的3.0版)应用于36案例数据库)。该CAD系统施加的标记由直径为5厘米的圆圈组成。比较了严格的“中心结节”标准和慷慨的“圆结节”标准作为计算CAD灵敏度的方法。通过盘中结节标准提高的敏感性被认为是偶然发现的结节。还分析了假阳性(FP)标记的数量。对于1.0版的结果,与中心结节标准相比,对于34例放射科医生遗漏的癌症,与中心结节标准相比,圆形结节标准偶然发现了八种癌症(占24%)。对于1.0版的结果,与放射中心结节标准相比,对于放射科医师提到的36个结节,圆结节标准偶然发现了七个病变(19%)。使用3.0版结果时偶然发现皮损(8%)。 1.0版每个图像平均产生六个FP标记,而3.0版每个图像仅产生三个FP标记。用于定义正负CAD检测的特定标准可能会严重影响CAD系统的表观准确性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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