Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20971779›Full record

ArticleRadiology2011

Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Swatee Singh, Jeff Maxwell, Jay A Baker, Jennifer L Nicholas, Joseph Y Lo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Ultrafast Breast MRI: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Artificial intelligence diagnosis based on breast ultrasound imaging.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. A Review of the Role of the S-Detect Computer-Aided Diagnostic Ultrasound System in the Evaluation of Benign and Malignant Breast and Thyroid Masses.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Deep learning for semi-automated unidirectional measurement of lung tumor size in CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Swatee SinghCarl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Duke University Medical Center, 2424 Erwin Rd, Ste 302, Durham, NC 27705, USA. swatee.singh@gmail.com
Jeff Maxwell
Jay A Baker
Jennifer L Nicholas
Joseph Y Lo

Funding

Reducing Benign Breast Biopsies with Computer ModelingR01CA095061 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BAKER, JAY A · 2003 to 2006
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA095061NCI NIH HHS R01-CA95061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the interobserver variability in descriptions of breast masses by dedicated breast imagers and radiology residents and determine how any differences in lesion description affect the performance of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) computer classification system. MATERIALS AND

methodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Images of 50 breast lesions were individually interpreted by seven dedicated breast imagers and 10 radiology residents, yielding 850 lesion interpretations. Lesions were described with use of 11 descriptors from the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, and interobserver variability was calculated with the Cohen κ statistic. Those 11 features were selected, along with patient age, and merged together by a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classification model trained by using 1005 previously existing cases. Variability in the recommendations of the computer model for different observers was also calculated with the Cohen κ statistic.

resultsA significant difference was observed for six lesion features, and radiology residents had greater interobserver variability in their selection of five of the six features than did dedicated breast imagers. The LDA model accurately classified lesions for both sets of observers (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.94 for residents and 0.96 for dedicated imagers). Sensitivity was maintained at 100% for residents and improved from 98% to 100% for dedicated breast imagers. For residents, the computer model could potentially improve the specificity from 20% to 40% (P < .01) and the κ value from 0.09 to 0.53 (P < .001). For dedicated breast imagers, the computer model could increase the specificity from 34% to 43% (P = .16) and the κ value from 0.21 to 0.61 (P < .001).

conclusionAmong findings showing a significant difference, there was greater interobserver variability in lesion descriptions among residents; however, an LDA model using data from either dedicated breast imagers or residents yielded a consistently high performance in the differentiation of benign from malignant breast lesions, demonstrating potential for improving specificity and decreasing interobserver variability in biopsy recommendations.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceAdolescentAdultAgedBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDiscriminant AnalysisFemaleHumansInternship and ResidencyMammographyMiddle AgedObserver VariationROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID20971779
PMCPMC3009385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.