Linked Life Data

9029538

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9029538

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
1
pubmed:dateCreated
1997-5-5
pubmed:abstractText
The purpose of this study was to compare identifications of microcalcification clusters on mammograms by a computerized detection scheme and by human observers having their eye position recorded. Eighty digitized mammograms (half with a subtle microcalcification cluster) were analyzed by a computerized detection scheme and then were read from laser-printed films by six mammographers while eye position was recorded. The computer had 83% true positives with a false-positive rate of 0.5 per image. The true positives of the radiologists ranged from 78% to 90%, with false-positive rates ranging from 0.03 to 0.20. Locations of true and false positives identified by computer and by the human were compared. All but 5% of the true clusters were identified by either the computer, human, or by both. Here 10% of the clusters were detected by only the computer, and 11% were missed by the computer but detected by at least one radiologist. False positives were of three types: identified by computer only, by the human reader only, or by both. Eye-position data indicated significant differences in dwell time between both true-positive and false-positive locations reported by the radiologist versus the computer detections. A follow-up analysis indicated that microcalcification clusters and false positives were judged to have more identifiable characteristics of true calcifications and were associated with longer gaze durations than those with fewer microcalcification characteristics. In general, the computer was able to detect clusters judged to have few or no features that the radiologists were not able to detect. Comparison of computer versus human identification of microcalcification clusters may be useful for improving computerized detection schemes to serve as clinical aids to mammographers, and for understanding what image features lead to false-positive decisions for both the computer and the human reader.
pubmed:grant
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jan
pubmed:issn
0094-2405
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
24
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
17-23
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-14
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1997
pubmed:articleTitle
Comparison of eye position versus computer identified microcalcification clusters on mammograms.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, Tucson 85724, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.