Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software.

Rationale and Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of relative sensitivity (reader without computer-aided detection [CAD] vs stand-alone CAD) and reading mode on reader performance when using CAD software. Materials and Methods: Two sets of 100 images (low-contrast and hi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Academic Radiology Vol. 16; no. 9; pp. 1095 - 1108
Main Authors: Paquerault S, Samuelson FW, Petrick N, Myers KJ, Smith RC, Paquerault, Sophie, Samuelson, Frank W, Petrick, Nicholas, Myers, Kyle J, Smith, Robert C
Format: research Journal Article
Published: Elsevier B.V. Sep2009
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105401316&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 105401316
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10766332
        T4X
      jtl: Academic Radiology
      issn: 10766332
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2009
      vid: 16
      iid: 9
      pid: 467
      pub: Elsevier B.V.
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        105401316
        NLM19523855
        2010364067
        10.1016/j.acra.2009.03.024
        NLM19523855
        105401316
      ppf: 1095
      ppct: 13
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Investigation of reading mode and relative sensitivity as factors that influence reader performance when using computer-aided detection software.
      aug:
        au:
          Paquerault S
          Samuelson FW
          Petrick N
          Myers KJ
          Smith RC
          Paquerault, Sophie
          Samuelson, Frank W
          Petrick, Nicholas
          Myers, Kyle J
          Smith, Robert C
        affil: Center for Devices and Radiological Health/National Insitute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, Joint Laboratory for Assessment of Medical Imaging Systems, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Algorithms
          Artifacts
          Breast Neoplasms Radiography
          Information Science Methods
          Mammography Methods
          Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted Methods
          Software
          Artificial Intelligence
          Female
          Observer Bias
          Radiographic Image Enhancement Methods
          Reproducibility of Results
          Sensitivity and Specificity
          Human
          Female
      ab: Rationale and Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of relative sensitivity (reader without computer-aided detection [CAD] vs stand-alone CAD) and reading mode on reader performance when using CAD software. Materials and Methods: Two sets of 100 images (low-contrast and high-contrast sets) were created by adding low-contrast or high-contrast simulated masses to random locations in 100 normal mammograms. This produced a relative sensitivity, substantially less for the low-contrast set and similar for the high-contrast set. Seven readers reviewed every image in each set and specified location and probability scores using three reading modes (without CAD, second read with CAD, and concurrent read with CAD). Reader detection accuracy was analyzed using areas under free-response receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity, and the number of false-positive findings per image. Results: For the low-contrast set, average differences in areas under free-response receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity, and false-positive findings per image without CAD were 0.02, 0.12, and 0.11, respectively, compared to second read and 0.05, 0.17, and 0.09 (not statistically significant), respectively, compared to concurrent read. For the high-contrast set, average differences were 0.002 (not statistically significant), 0.04, and 0.05, respectively, compared to second read and -0.004 (not statistically significant), 0.04, and 0.08 (not statistically significant), respectively, compared to concurrent read (all differences were statistically significant except as noted). Differences were greater in the low-contrast set than the high-contrast set. Differences between second read and concurrent read were not significant. Conclusions: Relative sensitivity is a critical factor that determines incremental improvement in reader performance when using CAD and appears to be more important than reading mode. Relative sensitivity may determine the clinical usefulness of CAD in different clinical applications and for different types of users.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N