Computer-aided detection as evidence in the courtroom: Potential implications of an appellate court's ruling

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 186, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 48-51

  Brenner, R James ^a   Ulissey, Michael J ^b   Wilt, Ronald M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Doolittle   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast; Mammography; Radiology practice

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COURT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; BREAST TUMOR; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; LEGAL ASPECT; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALPRACTICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33644839126     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0215     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ziegler KM, Flamm CD, Aronson N. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center: how we evaluate radiology technologies. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2:33-38
2. Daubert v Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 113 SCt 2786 (1993)
3. Physician Insurers Association of America. Breast cancer study. Rockville, MD: Physician Insurers Association of America, 2002
4. Wu Y, Giger ML, Doi K, et al. Artificial neural networks in mammography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 1993; 187:81-87
5. Baker JA, Koraguth P, Lo JY, Williford ME, Floyd CE. Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology 1995; 196:817-822
6. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001; 220:781-786
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 Nat Cancer Inst 2004; 96:185-190
8. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O' Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Brenner RJ. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography. Radiology 2004; 230:811-819
9. Skettington v Bradley, 366 Mich 552, 115 NW2d 393 (1962)
10. Warren-Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000; 215:554-562
11. Baker JA, Lo JY, Delong DM, Floyd CE. Computer-aided detection in screening mammography: variability in cues. Radiology 2004; 233:411-417
12. Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Brenner RJ. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening. Radiology 2003; 226:494-503
13. Gaba DM, Howard SK. Fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1249-1255
14. Nodine CF, Melo-Thoms C, Kundel HL, Weinstein SP. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. AJR 2002; 179:917-923
15. th Dist. no 82318, 2004-Ohio-1244, app LEXIS 1099 (civil appeal from Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, case no CV443871, decided on December 5, 2003)
16. Legal Information Institute Web site. Federal rules of evidence: evidence rule 702 (c). Available at: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ overview.html. Accessed August 23, 2005
17. Baker JA, Rosen EL, Gimenez EI, Walsh R, Soo MS. Computer-aided detection in screening mammography: sensitivity of commercial CAD systems for architectural distortion. AJR 2003; 181:1083-1088