ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2015
A comparison of axial versus coronal image viewing in computer-aided detection of lung nodules on CT.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the predictive accuracy of lung cancer, metastases, and benign lesions using an artificial intelligence-driven computer aided diagnosis system.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Deep convolutional neural networks for multiplanar lung nodule detection: Improvement in small nodule identification.Medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare primarily viewing axial images (Axial mode) versus coronal reconstruction images (Coronal mode) in computer-aided detection (CAD) of lung nodules on multidetector computed tomography (CT) in terms of detection performance and reading time. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty CT data sets from two institutions were collected prospectively. Ten observers (6 radiologists, 4 pulmonologists) with varying degrees of experience interpreted the data sets using CAD as a second reader (performing nodule detection first without then with aid). The data sets were interpreted twice, once each for Axial and Coronal modes, in two sessions held 4 weeks apart. Jackknife free-response receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to compare detection performances in the two modes.
resultsMean figure-of-merit values with and without aid were 0.717 and 0.684 in Axial mode and 0.702 and 0.671 in Coronal mode; use of CAD significantly increased the performance of observers in both modes (P < 0.01). Mean reading times for radiologists did not significantly differ between Axial (156 ± 74 s) and Coronal mode (164 ± 69 s; P = 0.08). Mean reading times for pulmonologists were significantly lower in Coronal (112 ± 53 s) than in Axial mode (130 ± 80 s; P < 0.01).
conclusionThere was no statistically significant difference between Axial and Coronal modes for lung nodule detection with CAD.
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.