Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 9 , Pages 1112-1121 , September 2010

Investigation of Optimal Use of Computer-Aided Detection Systems: The Role of the “Machine” in Decision Making Process

Received 30 November 2009 ,Accepted 19 April 2010.

References 

  1. Doi K. Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2007;31:198–211
  2. Hoffman R, Fiore SM. Perceptual (re)learning: a leverage point for human-centered computing. IEEE Intell Syst. 2007;22:79–83
  3. Robinson PJA. Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. Br J Radiol. 1997;70:1085–1098
  4. Petrick N, Sahiner B, Chan H-P, Helvie MA, et al. Breast cancer detection: evaluation of a mass-detection algorithm for computer-aided diagnosis—experience in 263 patients. Radiology. 2002;224:217–224
  5. Ellis RL, Meade AA, Mathiason MA, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided detection systems in the detection of small invasive breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2007;245:88–94
  6. Zheng B, Hardesty LA, Poller WR, Sumkin JH, Golla S. Mammography with computer-aided detection: reproducibility assessment—initial experience. Radiology. 2003;228:58–62
  7. Astley SM. Computer-based detection and prompting of mammographic abnormalities. Br J Radiol. 2004;77:S194–S200
  8. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1399–1409
  9. Vasko C. Utilization and reimbursements and staffing, oh my! Where are we today, and what lies ahead? Available at: http://www.imagingeconomics.com/issues/articles/2008-08_01.asp. Accessed August 19, 2009.
  10. Eisenberg RL. Radiology and the law: malpractice and other issues. New York: Springer; 2003;
  11. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Rosenberg R, et al. Physician workload in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:526–532
  12. Bhargavan M, Kaye AH, Forman HP, et al. Workload of radiologists in United States in 2006-2007 and trends since 1991-1992. Radiology. 2009;252:458–467
  13. Zheng B, Chough D, Ronald P, et al. Actual versus intended use of CAD systems in the clinical environment. Proc SPIE. 2006;6146:614602
  14. Paquerault S, Samuelson FW, Petrick N, et al. Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:1095–1107
  15. Kobayashi T, Xu XW, MacMahon H, et al. Effect of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme on radiologists' performance in detection of lung nodules on radiographs. Radiology. 1996;199:843–848
  16. Jiang Y, Metz CE. A quadratic model for combining quantitative diagnostic assessments from radiologist and computer in computer-aided diagnosis. Acad Radiol. 2006;13:140–151
  17. Fierz W. Challenge of personalized health care: to what extent is medicine already individualized and what are the future trends?. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10:RA111–RA123
  18. Samuelson FW, Petrick N. Comparing image detection algorithms using resampling. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging. 2006;1312–1315
  19. Samuelson FW, Petrick N, Paquerault S. Advantages and examples of resampling for CAD evaluation. Proc IEEE Int Symp Biomed Imaging. 2007;492–495
  20. Brem RF. Clinical versus research approach to breast cancer detection with CAD: where are we now?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:234–235
  21. Brem RF. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography: the importance of the question and the critical numbers game. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:1142–1144
  22. Gur D, Sumkin JH. CAD in screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1474
  23. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1854–1863
  24. Taylor P, Potts HW. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:798–807
  25. Chan H-P, Sahiner B, Wagner RF, et al. Classifier design for computer-aided diagnosis: effects of finite sample size on the mean performance of classical and neural network classifiers. Med Phys. 1999;26:2654–2668
  26. Wagner RF, Beiden SV, Metz CE. Continuous versus categorical data for ROC analysis: some quantitative considerations. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:328–334

PII: S1076-6332(10)00231-X

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.04.010

Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 9 , Pages 1112-1121 , September 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution