Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28295405›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2017

Optimal reconstruction and quantitative image features for computer-aided diagnosis tools for breast CT.

Juhun Lee, Robert M Nishikawa, Ingrid Reiser, John M Boone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Juhun LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Robert M NishikawaDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Ingrid ReiserDepartment of Radiology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
John M BooneDepartment of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA.

Funding

Breast CT: Final Steps to TranslationR01CA181081 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BOONE, JOHN M · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
Quantitative Evaluation of Reconstruction Algorithms - Resubmission 01R21EB015053 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI NISHIKAWA, ROBERT M · 2012 to 2013
$417k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA181081NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB015053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the optimal representative reconstruction and quantitative image feature set for a computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) scheme for dedicated breast computer tomography (bCT).

methodWe used 93 bCT scans that contain 102 breast lesions (62 malignant, 40 benign). Using an iterative image reconstruction (IIR) algorithm, we created 37 reconstructions with different image appearances for each case. In addition, we added a clinical reconstruction for comparison purposes. We used image sharpness, determined by the gradient of gray value in a parenchymal portion of the reconstructed breast, as a surrogate measure of the image qualities/appearances for the 38 reconstructions. After segmentation of the breast lesion, we extracted 23 quantitative image features. Using leave-one-out-cross-validation (LOOCV), we conducted the feature selection, classifier training, and testing. For this study, we used the linear discriminant analysis classifier. Then, we selected the representative reconstruction and feature set for the classifier with the best diagnostic performance among all reconstructions and feature sets. Then, we conducted an observer study with six radiologists using a subset of breast lesions (N = 50). Using 1000 bootstrap samples, we compared the diagnostic performance of the trained classifier to those of the radiologists.

resultThe diagnostic performance of the trained classifier increased as the image sharpness of a given reconstruction increased. Among combinations of reconstructions and quantitative image feature sets, we selected one of the sharp reconstructions and three quantitative image feature sets with the first three highest diagnostic performances under LOOCV as the representative reconstruction and feature set for the classifier. The classifier on the representative reconstruction and feature set achieved better diagnostic performance with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.94 (95% CI = [0.81, 0.98]) than those of the radiologists, where their maximum AUC was 0.78 (95% CI = [0.63, 0.90]). Moreover, the partial AUC, at 90% sensitivity or higher, of the classifier (pAUC = 0.085 with 95% CI = [0.063, 0.094]) was statistically better (P-value < 0.0001) than those of the radiologists (maximum pAUC = 0.009 with 95% CI = [0.003, 0.024]).

conclusionWe found that image sharpness measure can be a good candidate to estimate the diagnostic performance of a given CADx algorithm. In addition, we found that there exists a reconstruction (i.e., sharp reconstruction) and a feature set that maximizes the diagnostic performance of a CADx algorithm. On this optimal representative reconstruction and feature set, the CADx algorithm outperformed radiologists.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsDiscriminant AnalysisFemaleHumansbreast CTCADxclassificationcurvatureimage feature analysis

Identifiers

PMID28295405
PMCPMC5467730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.