1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Anniversary Paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: The role of Medical Physics and AAPM
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.3013555
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/12/10.1118/1.3013555
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/12/10.1118/1.3013555

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Schematic diagram of a CAD system for medical image interpretation.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Publications on or related to CAD in Medical Physics.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Components within the “black box” of a CAD system.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Difference-image approach to detecting nodule candidates on chest radiographs. The approach aimed to enhance the nodule with one processing filter and to suppress the anatomical background with another processing filter, with the difference resulting in an image for further analysis. Reprinted with permission from Giger et al. 1988 (Ref. 21).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

ROC curves illustrating statistically significant improvement in radiologists’ detection of microcalcification clusters when a computer aid is used. Level 1 corresponds to use of the computer having a performance level of 87% true-positive rate and an average of four false-positive clusters per image. Level 2 corresponds to use a computer aid with the same 87% true-positive rate but a simulated average false-positive cluster rate of only one false-positive cluster per image. Reprinted with permission from Chan et al. (Ref. 114).

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(a) First prototype CADe system—developed for screening mammography at the University of Chicago (circa 1994); (b) system annotated output on thermal paper.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Computer/human interface for a multimodality workstation with computer outputs in numerical, pictorial, and graphical modes for both (a) mammography CADx output and (b) sonography CADx output.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Three empirical ROC curves with area under the ROC curve (AUC) values of 0.917, 0.825, and 0.862. The partial area values are 0.817, 0.484, and 0.261, respectively, for a sensitivity threshold 0.90. It is apparent that ROC (1), with its high partial area index, corresponds to a high sensitivity at high specificity (1-FPF). Reprinted with permission from Jiang et al. (Ref. 323).

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Prospective clinical trial of commercial CADe systems for screening mammography. These studies used a sequential reading design in which the interpretations by the same radiologist without CADe immediately followed by with CADe were recorded for individual cases. The results were, therefore, collected from the same patient cohorts and the same radiologists.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Prospective clinical trial of commercial CADe systems for screening mammography. These studies compared the statistical results by a group of radiologists over two periods of time before and after CADe was implemented in the practice. The patient cohorts were different and the radiologists may not be the same.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/12/10.1118/1.3013555
2008-11-20
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Anniversary Paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: The role of Medical Physics and AAPM
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/12/10.1118/1.3013555
10.1118/1.3013555
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM