ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2017
Developing a new case based computer-aided detection scheme and an adaptive cueing method to improve performance in detecting mammographic lesions.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2017. 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.
- Improving mammography lesion classification by optimal fusion of handcrafted and deep transfer learning features.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- Developing global image feature analysis models to predict cancer risk and prognosis.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2019Article
- Classification of Breast Masses Using a Computer-Aided Diagnosis Scheme of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammograms.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2018Article
- A new approach to develop computer-aided diagnosis scheme of breast mass classification using deep learning technology.Journal of X-ray science and technology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate a new method to improve performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) schemes of screening mammograms with two approaches. In the first approach, we developed a new case based CAD scheme using a set of optimally selected global mammographic density, texture, spiculation, and structural similarity features computed from all four full-field digital mammography images of the craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views by using a modified fast and accurate sequential floating forward selection feature selection algorithm. Selected features were then applied to a 'scoring fusion' artificial neural network classification scheme to produce a final case based risk score. In the second approach, we combined the case based risk score with the conventional lesion based scores of a conventional lesion based CAD scheme using a new adaptive cueing method that is integrated with the case based risk scores. We evaluated our methods using a ten-fold cross-validation scheme on 924 cases (476 cancer and 448 recalled or negative), whereby each case had all four images from the CC and MLO views. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was AUC = 0.793 ± 0.015 and the odds ratio monotonically increased from 1 to 37.21 as CAD-generated case based detection scores increased. Using the new adaptive cueing method, the region based and case based sensitivities of the conventional CAD scheme at a false positive rate of 0.71 per image increased by 2.4% and 0.8%, respectively. The study demonstrated that supplementary information can be derived by computing global mammographic density image features to improve CAD-cueing performance on the suspicious mammographic lesions.
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.