ArticleRadiology2011
Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An Appraisal of Nodule Diagnosis for Lung Cancer in CT Images.Journal of medical systems · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical applications of deep learning in distinguishing benign from malignant pulmonary nodules in computed tomography scans.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Ultrafast Breast MRI: A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- A hybrid features fusion-based framework for classification of breast micronodules using ultrasonography.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- The diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement can be made on pelvis radiographs using deep learning methods.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical Scores, Biomarkers and IT Tools in Lung Cancer Screening-Can an Integrated Approach Overcome Current Challenges?Cancers · 2023Review
- Review
- Artificial intelligence diagnosis based on breast ultrasound imaging.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022Article
- Assessing Detection Accuracy of Computerized Sonographic Features and Computer-Assisted Reading Performance in Differentiating Thyroid Cancers.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Automated Classification of Rheumatoid Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, and Normal Hand Radiographs with Deep Learning Methods.Journal of digital imaging · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Applications in Computed Tomography Images for Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Diagnosis: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- S-Thyroid Computer-Aided Diagnosis Ultrasound System of Thyroid Nodules: Correlation Between Transverse and Longitudinal Planes.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- 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 · 2021Review
- Digital subtraction of temporally sequential mammograms for improved detection and classification of microcalcifications.European radiology experimental · 2021Article
- Deep learning for semi-automated unidirectional measurement of lung tumor size in CT.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2021Article
- Classification of malignant tumours in breast ultrasound using unsupervised machine learning approaches.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Retrospective comparison of approaches to evaluating inter-observer variability in CT tumour measurements in an academic health centre.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Differentiating benign and malignant mass and non-mass lesions in breast DCE-MRI using normalized frequency-based features.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2020Article
- Effect of a Deep Learning Framework-Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis System on the Diagnostic Performance of Radiologists in Differentiating between Malignant and Benign Masses on Breast Ultrasonography.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.