ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2014
Impact of lesion segmentation metrics on computer-aided diagnosis/detection in breast computed tomography.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship between computer segmentation performance and computer classification performance in breast CT: A simulation study using RGI segmentation and LDA classification.Medical physics · 2018Article
- Neutrosophic segmentation of breast lesions for dedicated breast computed tomography.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2018Article
- Optimal reconstruction and quantitative image features for computer-aided diagnosis tools for breast CT.Medical physics · 2017Article
- Lack of agreement between radiologists: implications for image-based model observers.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Article
- Local curvature analysis for classifying breast tumors: Preliminary analysis in dedicated breast CT.Medical physics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evaluation of segmentation algorithms usually involves comparisons of segmentations to gold-standard delineations without regard to the ultimate medical decision-making task. We compare two segmentation evaluations methods-a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) evaluation and a diagnostic classification task-based evaluation method using lesions from breast computed tomography. In our investigation, we use results from two previously developed lesion-segmentation algorithms [a global active contour model (GAC) and a global with local aspects active contour model]. Although similar DSC values were obtained (0.80 versus 0.77), we show that the global + local active contour (GLAC) model, as compared with the GAC model, is able to yield significantly improved classification performance in terms of area under the receivers operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the task of distinguishing malignant from benign lesions. [Area under the [Formula: see text] compared to 0.63, [Formula: see text]]. This is mainly because the GLAC model yields better detailed information required in the calculation of morphological features. Based on our findings, we conclude that the DSC metric alone is not sufficient for evaluating segmentation lesions in computer-aided diagnosis tasks.
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.