The reliability of measuring physical characteristics of spiculated masses on mammography

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 79, Issue SPEC. ISS. 2, 2006, Pages

  Sampat, Mehul P ^a   Whitman, G J ^c   Stephens, T W ^c   Broemeling, L D ^c   Heger, N A ^d   Bovik, A C ^b   Markey, Mia K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d CAMERON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RELIABILITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33846486163     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/96723280     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Giger ML. Computer-aided diagnosis of breast lesions in medical images. Comput Sci Engineering 2000;2:39-45.
2. Giger ML, Karssemeijer N, Armato SG, III. Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 2001;20:1205-8.
3. Doi K, MacMahon H, Katsuragawa S, Nishikawa RM, Jiang Y. Computer-aided diagnosis in radiology: potential and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol 1999;31:97-109.
4. Vyborny CJ, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiol Clin N Am 2000;38:725-40.
5. Sampat MP, Markey MK, Bovik AC. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis in mammography. In: Bovik AC, editor. Handbook of image and video processing, 2nd edn. Academic Press, 2005:1195-217.
6. Sampat MP, Whitman GJ, Markey MK, Bovik AC. Evidence-based detection of spiculated masses and architectural distortions. Medical Imaging 2005: Image Processing 2005;5747:26-37.
7. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:773-8.
8. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1769-77.
9. Vos MJ, Uitdehaag BM, Barkhof F, et al. Interobserver variability in the radiological assessment of response to chemotherapy in glioma. Neurology 2003;60:826-30.
10. Erasmus J, Gladish GW, Broemeling L, Sabloff BS, Truong MT, Herbst RS, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor responses. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2574-82.
11. Bogot NR, Kazerooni EA, Kelly AM, Quint LE, Desjardins B, Nan B. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the assessment of pulmonary nodule size on CT using film and computer display methods. Acad Radiol 2005;12:948-56.
12. Valentin L, Bergelin I. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of ultrasound measurements of cervical length and width in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;20:256-62.
13. de Vries M, de Koning PJ, de Haan MW, Kesselo AG, Nelemans PJ, Nijenhuis RJ, et al. Accuracy of semiautomated analysis of 3D contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for detection and quantification of aortoiliac stenoses. Investigative Radiol 2005;40:495-503.
14. Wetzel SG, Cha S, Johnson G, Lee P, Law M, Kasow DL, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 2002;224:797-803.
15. Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Van Slyke MA, Schwartz TA, TenHave TR, Jozefiak JA. Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:851-4.
16. Heath M, Bowyer KW, Kopans D, Moore R, Kegelmeyer P Jr. The digital database for screening mammography. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 2000.
17. Luiz RR, Szklo M. More than one statistical strategy to assess agreement of quantitative measurements may use-fully be reported. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:215-6.
18. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods 1996;1:30-46.
19. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22:85-93.
21. Wellek S. Testing statistical hypothesis of equivalence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2003.
22. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. Belmont, CA. Duxbury Press, 2005.