ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Practice toward standardized performance testing of computer-aided detection algorithms for pulmonary nodule.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed at implementing practice to build a standardized protocol to test the performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms for pulmonary nodules. A test dataset was established according to a standardized procedure, including data collection, curation and annotation. Six types of pulmonary nodules were manually annotated as reference standard. Three specific rules to match algorithm output with reference standard were applied and compared. These rules included: (1) "center hit" [whether the center of algorithm highlighted region of interest (ROI) hit the ROI of reference standard]; (2) "center distance" (whether the distance between algorithm highlighted ROI center and reference standard center was below a certain threshold); (3) "area overlap" (whether the overlap between algorithm highlighted ROI and reference standard was above a certain threshold). Performance metrics were calculated and the results were compared among ten algorithms under test (AUTs). The test set currently consisted of CT sequences from 593 patients. Under "center hit" rule, the average recall rate, average precision, and average F
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.