Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6384827

[A computerized program in gastroenterology].

A Bertuzzi·U Comin·D Ferrari·C A Maggi·E Ballarin·A M Fertitta
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedGastroenterologyHumansMedical RecordsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Bertuzzi, U Comin, D Ferrari, C A Maggi, E Ballarin, A M Fertitta. 1984-09-22. [A computerized program in gastroenterology].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6384827/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Automated localization of nerve damage: hypothesis, technique and performance appraisal.

Needle-EMG is a common procedure performed and relied on by neurologists, physiatrists and neurosurgeons to localize focal nerve damage. However, despite its popularity, there is no standardization of this diagnostic process rendering it error prone. An automated diagnostic program may help the electromyographer by providing an objective second opinion and a statistical measure of its strength. Such a program is presented and evaluated in this manuscript. The electromyographer samples a set of muscles and grades each muscle for neuropathic changes. The Program accepts the electromyographer's graded muscle set. The Program then compares it to muscle-sets derived from all possible combinations of nerve damage and finds that combination that results in the best match. The latter is the anatomical diagnosis. Eighty-five cases from the literature, each with an impartial expert diagnosis, were analyzed using this Program. The Program precisely matched the expert electromyographers' diagnoses in 79% of the cases, partially matched in 15%, and did not match in 6% of the cases. In the latter, not necessarily the Program was in error. The Program proved to be a reliable diagnostic tool that may help electromyographers by offering a second opinion. It may also assist in teaching of residents and fellows.

Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of the Sperm Quality Analyzer IIC variables with the computer-aided sperm analysis estimates.

Sperm Quality Analyzer (SQA) IIC, an upgrade version, is an inexpensive device and provides a quantitative estimation of sperm motility, whereas the use of computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) provides high precision and provision of quantitative data on sperm kinetics. The aim of the present study was to evaluate if the SQA IIC variables correlated with the CASA estimates. Semen quality analysis of 71 fresh semen samples was performed using SQA IIC and CASA. Total sperm concentration, percentage of progressively motile sperm, percentage of normal morphology, motile sperm concentration, sperm motility index (SMI) and functional sperm count (FSC) determinations were performed using SQA IIC. Sperm concentration, sperm motility, and sperm motion variables including amplitude of lateral head displacement (ALH), beat cross frequency (BCF), curvilinear velocity (VCL), straight line velocity (VSL), average path velocity (VAP), linearity (LIN=VSL/VCL), and straightness (STR=VSL/VAP) were evaluated simultaneously on the same semen samples using CASA. The sperm characteristics were compared between SQA IIC and CASA. There were significant correlations of sperm concentration (r=0.634, p < 0.0001), sperm motility (r=0.697, p < 0.0001), and motile sperm concentration (r=0.757, p < 0.0001) between the two devices. Both SMI and FSC significantly correlated with eight CASA estimates, including sperm concentration, sperm motility, motile sperm concentration, ALH, VCL, VSL, VAP, and Rapid. SQA IIC is simple and easy to use. Moreover, the SQA IIC variables well correlated with the CASA estimates. As a screening test for semen quality, SQA IIC is considered as useful in the management of male infertility.

Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted↗
PubMed2002

Comparing machine learning classifiers for diagnosing glaucoma from standard automated perimetry.

PURPOSE: To determine which machine learning classifier learns best to interpret standard automated perimetry (SAP) and to compare the best of the machine classifiers with the global indices of STATPAC 2 and with experts in glaucoma. METHODS: Multilayer perceptrons (MLP), support vector machines (SVM), mixture of Gaussian (MoG), and mixture of generalized Gaussian (MGG) classifiers were trained and tested by cross validation on the numerical plot of absolute sensitivity plus age of 189 normal eyes and 156 glaucomatous eyes, designated as such by the appearance of the optic nerve. The authors compared performance of these classifiers with the global indices of STATPAC, using the area under the ROC curve. Two human experts were judged against the machine classifiers and the global indices by plotting their sensitivity-specificity pairs. RESULTS: MoG had the greatest area under the ROC curve of the machine classifiers. Pattern SD (PSD) and corrected PSD (CPSD) had the largest areas under the curve of the global indices. MoG had significantly greater ROC area than PSD and CPSD. Human experts were not better at classifying visual fields than the machine classifiers or the global indices. CONCLUSIONS: MoG, using the entire visual field and age for input, interpreted SAP better than the global indices of STATPAC. Machine classifiers may augment the global indices of STATPAC.

Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted↗