ArticleMedical physics2018
Relationship between computer segmentation performance and computer classification performance in breast CT: A simulation study using RGI segmentation and LDA classification.
Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeMany computer aided diagnosis (CADx) tools for breast cancer begin by fully or semiautomatically segmenting a given breast lesion and then classifying the lesion's likelihood of malignancy using quantitative features extracted from the image. It is often assumed that better segmentation will result in better classification. However, this has not been thoroughly evaluated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between computer segmentation performance and computer classification performance.
methodWe used 85 breast lesions (32 benign, 56 malignant) from breast computed tomography (CT) cases of 82 women. We prepared one smooth and one sharp iterative image reconstructions (IIR) and a clinical reconstruction for each of the 82 breast CT scans. For each reconstruction, we created 15 segmentation outcomes by applying 15 different segmentation algorithms. Specifically, we simulated 15 segmentation algorithms by changing parameters in a single segmentation algorithm. We then created 15 classification outcomes by conducting quantitative image feature analysis on the segmented image results. Using a 10-fold cross-validation, we evaluated the relationship between segmentation and classification performances.
resultWe found a low positive correlation between segmentation and classification performances for the smooth IIR (median Pearson's rho = 0.18), while a moderate positive correlation (median Pearson's rho = 0.4-0.43) was found between the two performances for the sharp IIR and clinical reconstruction. However, we found large variations in both segmentation and classification performances for the sharp IIR and clinical reconstruction. There were cases where segmentation algorithms resulted in similar segmentation performances, but the corresponding classification performances were different. These results indicate that an improvement in segmentation performance does not guarantee an improvement in the corresponding classification performance.
conclusionComputer segmentation is an indirect variable affecting the computer classification. As better segmentation does not guarantee better classification, we should report both segmentation and classification performances when comparing segmentation algorithms.
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.