ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2020
Evaluation of Convolutional Neural Networks for Search in 1/f
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2020. 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.
- Deep-learning-based model observer for a lung nodule detection task in computed tomography.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Trial
- Computational Breast Anatomy Simulation Using Multi-Scale Perlin Noise.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 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.
Funding
Abstract
With the advent of powerful convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recent studies have extended early applications of neural networks to imaging tasks thus making CNNs a potential new tool for assessing medical image quality. Here, we compare a CNN to model observers in a search task for two possible signals (a simulated mass and a smaller simulated micro-calcification) embedded in filtered noise and single slices of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) virtual phantoms. For the case of the filtered noise, we show how a CNN can approximate the ideal observer for a search task, achieving a statistical efficiency of 0.77 for the microcalcification and 0.78 for the mass. For search in single slices of DBT phantoms, we show that a Channelized Hotelling Observer (CHO) performance is affected detrimentally by false positives related to anatomic variations and results in detection accuracy below human observer performance. In contrast, the CNN learns to identify and discount the backgrounds, and achieves performance comparable to that of human observer and superior to model observers (Proportion Correct for the microcalcification: CNN = 0.96; Humans = 0.98; CHO = 0.84; Proportion Correct for the mass: CNN = 0.98; Humans = 0.83; CHO = 0.51). Together, our results provide an important evaluation of CNN methods by benchmarking their performance against human and model observers in complex search tasks.
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.