Probabilistic Computer Model Developed from Clinical Data in National Mammography Database Format to Classify Mammographic Findings1
Purpose: To determine whether a Bayesian network trained on a large database of patient demographic risk factors and radiologist-observed findings from consecutive clinical mammography examinations can exceed radiologist performance in the classification of mammographic findings as benign or maligna...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Radiology 2009-06, Vol.251 (3), p.663 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose: To determine whether a Bayesian network trained on a large database of patient demographic risk factors and radiologist-observed
findings from consecutive clinical mammography examinations can exceed radiologist performance in the classification of mammographic
findings as benign or malignant.
Materials and Methods: The institutional review board exempted this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from requiring informed consent. Structured
reports from 48Â 744 consecutive pooled screening and diagnostic mammography examinations in 18Â 269 patients from April 5,
1999 to February 9, 2004 were collected. Mammographic findings were matched with a state cancer registry, which served as
the reference standard. By using 10-fold cross validation, the Bayesian network was tested and trained to estimate breast
cancer risk by using demographic risk factors (age, family and personal history of breast cancer, and use of hormone replacement
therapy) and mammographic findings recorded in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. The performance of radiologists
compared with the Bayesian network was evaluated by using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity,
and specificity.
Results: The Bayesian network significantly exceeded the performance of interpreting radiologists in terms of AUC (0.960 vs 0.939,
P = .002), sensitivity (90.0% vs 85.3%, P < .001), and specificity (93.0% vs 88.1%, P < .001).
Conclusion: On the basis of prospectively collected variables, the evaluated Bayesian network can predict the probability of breast cancer
and exceed interpreting radiologist performance. Bayesian networks may help radiologists improve mammographic interpretation.
Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2513081346/DC1
© RSNA, 2009 |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0033-8419 1527-1315 |
DOI: | 10.1148/radiol.2513081346 |