Investigation of Optimal Use of Computer-Aided Detection Systems. The Role of the " Machine" in Decision Making Process.

Academic Radiology

Volumn 17, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1112-1121

  Paquerault, Sophie ^a   Hardy, Paul T ^a   Wersto, Nancy ^a   Chen, John ^a   Smith, Robert C ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer aided detection; Computerized models; Decision making process; Free response receiver operating characteristic; Personalized medical practice

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; MACHINE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 77955425580     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Doi K. Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2007, 31:198-211.
2. Hoffman R., Fiore S.M. Perceptual (re)learning: a leverage point for human-centered computing. IEEE Intell Syst 2007, 22:79-83.
3. Robinson P.J.A. Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. Br J Radiol 1997, 70:1085-1098.
4. Petrick N., Sahiner B., Chan H.-P., Helvie M.A., et al. Breast cancer detection: evaluation of a mass-detection algorithm for computer-aided diagnosis-experience in 263 patients. Radiology 2002, 224:217-224.
5. Ellis R.L., Meade A.A., Mathiason M.A., et al. Evaluation of computer-aided detection systems in the detection of small invasive breast carcinoma. Radiology 2007, 245:88-94.
6. Zheng B., Hardesty L.A., Poller W.R., Sumkin J.H., Golla S. Mammography with computer-aided detection: reproducibility assessment-initial experience. Radiology 2003, 228:58-62.
7. Astley S.M. Computer-based detection and prompting of mammographic abnormalities. Br J Radiol 2004, 77:S194-S200.
8. Fenton J.J., Taplin S.H., Carney P.A., et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:1399-1409.
9. Vasko C. Utilization and reimbursements and staffing, oh my! Where are we today, and what lies ahead? Available at: Accessed August 19, 2009. http://www.imagingeconomics.com/issues/articles/2008-08_01.asp.
10. Eisenberg R.L. Radiology and the law: malpractice and other issues 2003, Springer, New York.
11. Smith-Bindman R., Miglioretti D.L., Rosenberg R., et al. Physician workload in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 190:526-532.
12. Bhargavan M., Kaye A.H., Forman H.P., et al. Workload of radiologists in United States in 2006-2007 and trends since 1991-1992. Radiology 2009, 252:458-467.
13. Zheng B., Chough D., Ronald P., et al. Actual versus intended use of CAD systems in the clinical environment. Proc SPIE 2006, 6146:614602.
14. Paquerault S., Samuelson F.W., Petrick N., et al. Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software. Acad Radiol 2009, 16:1095-1107.
15. Kobayashi T., Xu X.W., MacMahon H., et al. Effect of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme on radiologists' performance in detection of lung nodules on radiographs. Radiology 1996, 199:843-848.
16. Jiang Y., Metz C.E. A quadratic model for combining quantitative diagnostic assessments from radiologist and computer in computer-aided diagnosis. Acad Radiol 2006, 13:140-151.
17. Fierz W. Challenge of personalized health care: to what extent is medicine already individualized and what are the future trends?. Med Sci Monit 2004, 10:RA111-RA123.
18. Samuelson F.W., Petrick N. Comparing image detection algorithms using resampling. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging 2006, 1312-1315.
19. Samuelson F.W., Petrick N., Paquerault S. Advantages and examples of resampling for CAD evaluation. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging 2007, 492-495.
20. Brem R.F. Clinical versus research approach to breast cancer detection with CAD: where are we now?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:234-235.
21. Brem R.F. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography: the importance of the question and the critical numbers game. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 189:1142-1144.
22. Gur D., Sumkin J.H. CAD in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:1474.
23. Miglioretti D.L., Smith-Bindman R., Abraham L., et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007, 99:1854-1863.
24. Taylor P., Potts H.W. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:798-807.
25. Chan H.-P., Sahiner B., Wagner R.F., et al. Classifier design for computer-aided diagnosis: effects of finite sample size on the mean performance of classical and neural network classifiers. Med Phys 1999, 26:2654-2668.
26. Wagner R.F., Beiden S.V., Metz C.E. Continuous versus categorical data for ROC analysis: some quantitative considerations. Acad Radiol 2001, 8:328-334.