Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David Gur

Publications and source records attributed to David Gur.

56 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

Computer-aided detection in mammography: an assessment of performance on current and prior images.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed and compared the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) scheme for the detection of masses and microcalcification clusters on a set of images collected from two consecutive ("current" and "prior") mammographic examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A previously developed CAD scheme was used to assess two consecutive screening mammograms from 200 cases in which the current mammogram showed a mass or cluster of microcalcifications that resulted in breast biopsy. The latest prior examinations had been initially interpreted as negative or definitely benign findings (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System rating, 1 or 2). The study involved images of 400 examinations acquired in 200 patients. Radiologists identified 172 masses and 128 clusters of microcalcifications on the current images. The performance of the CAD scheme was analyzed and compared for the current and latest prior images. RESULTS: There were significant differences (P < .01) between current and prior images in many feature values. The performance of the CAD scheme was significantly lower for prior than for current images (P < .01). At 0.5 and 0.2 false-positive mass and cluster cues per image, the scheme detected 78 malignant masses (78%) and 63 malignant clusters (80%) on current images. Only 42% of malignant cases were detected on prior images, including 40 masses (40%) and 36 microcalcification clusters (46%). CONCLUSION: CAD schemes can detect a substantial fraction of masses and microcalcification clusters depicted on prior images. To improve performance with prior images, the scheme may have to be adaptively reoptimized with increasingly more subtle abnormalities.

Breast Diseases↗

Observer performance studies: detection of single versus multiple abnormalities of the chest.

OBJECTIVE: We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to compare two methods of evaluating observer performance in detecting an abnormality on chest radiographs. In the first method, the abnormality in question, rib fracture, was one of five investigated, and it was the only one of interest in the second. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight experienced observers viewed 117 posteroanterior chest radiographs in two interpretation modes. Fifty-four of these images depicted rib fractures that had been rated as subtle for detection. The likelihood of the presence of a rib fracture was rated as one of five abnormalities in question in one mode and the sole abnormality of interest in the other mode. RESULTS: Six of the observers performed better during the single-abnormality mode, one performed equally well in both modes, and one performed better during the multiple-abnormality mode. The average area under the ROC curves (A(z)) was 0.73 +/- 0.07 for the multiple-abnormality mode and 0.80 +/- 0.04 for the single-abnormality mode. The results were significantly different (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Study methodology can significantly affect the results in ROC studies, particularly for abnormalities that may not be perceived as primary or important. The order in which abnormalities appear on a checklist report form may be important.

Area Under Curve↗