Performance and reproducibility of a computerized mass detection scheme for digitized mammography using rotated and resampled images: An assessment

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 185, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 194-198

  Zheng, Bin ^a   Maitz, Glenn S ^a   Ganott, Marie A ^a   Abrams, Gordon ^a   Leader, Joseph K ^a   Gur, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; FEMALE; IMAGE PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 24644483770     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.185.1.01850194     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. D'Orsi CJ. Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. Radiology 2001; 221:585-586
2. Guenin MA. How not to assess computer-aided detection for mammography. (letter) AJR 2004; 182:1599
3. Malich A, Azhari T, Bohm T, Fleck M, Kaiser WA. Reproducibility: an important factor determining the quality of computer aided detection (CAD) systems. Eur J Radiol 2000; 36:170-174
4. Moberg K, Bjurstam N, Wilczek B, Rostgard L, Egge E, Muren C. Computer assisted detection of interval breast cancers. Eur J Radiol 2001; 39:104-110
5. Zheng B, Ganott MA, Britton CA, et al. Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cueing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 2001; 221:633-640
6. Taylor CG, Champness J, Reddy M, Taylor P, Potts HW, Given-Wilson R. Reproducibility of prompts in computer-aided detection (CAD) of breast cancers. Clin Radiol 2003; 58:733-738
7. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:185-190
8. Zheng B, Hardesty LA, Poller WR, Sumkin JH, Golla S. Mammography with computer-aided detection: reproducibility assessment-initial experience. Radiology 2003; 228:58-62
9. Zheng B, Gur D, Good WF, Hardesty LA. A method to test the reproducibility and to improve performance of computer-aided detection schemes for digitized mammograms. Med Phys 2004; 31:2964-2972
10. Nishikawa RM, Giger ML, Doi K, et al. Effect of case selection on the performance of computer-aided detection schemes, Med Phys 1994; 21:265-269
11. Zheng B, Chang YH, Gur D. On the reporting of mass contrast in CAD research. Med Phys 1996; 23:2007-2009
12. Zheng B, Sumkin JH, Good WF, Maitz GS, Chang YH, Gur D. Applying computer-assisted detection schemes to digitized mammograms after JPEG data compression: an assessment. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:595-602
13. Li L, Zheng Y, Zhang L, Clark RA. False-positive reduction in CAD mass detection using a competitive classification strategy. Med Phys 2001; 28:250-258
14. Gur D, Stalder JS, Hardesty LA, et al. Computer-aided detection performance in mammographic examination of masses: assessment. Radiology 2004; 233:418-423.