Use of prompt magnitude in computer aided detection of masses in mammograms

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4046 LNCS, Issue , 2006, Pages 54-60

  Karssemeijer, Nico ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER AIDED DIAGNOSIS; DECISION MAKING; DISEASES; PERFORMANCE;

ABNORMALITIES; COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION; MAMMOGRAMS;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 33746327807     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11783237_8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (5)

1. T. W. Freer and M. J. Ulissey. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology, 220(3):781-6, 2001.
2. T. E. Cupples, J. E. Cunningham, and J. C. Reynolds. Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 185(4):944-950, 2005.
3. N. Karssemeijer, J. D. Otten, A. L. Verbeek, J, H. Groenewoud, H. J, de Koning, J. H. Hendriks, and R. Holland. Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. Radiology, 227(1):192-200, 2003.
4. D Manning, S Ethell, and T Donovan. Categories of observer error from eye-tracking and afroc data. SPIE Medical Imaging, 5372:90-99, 2004.
5. R. G. Swensson. Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. Med Phys, 23(10):1709-25, 1996.