Interpretation Time of Computer-aided Detection at Screening Mammography
To prospectively determine the interpretation time associated with computer-aided detection (CAD) and to analyze how CAD affected radiologists' decisions and their level of confidence in their interpretations of digital screening mammograms. An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Radiology 2010-10, Vol.257 (1), p.40-46 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 46 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 40 |
| container_title | Radiology |
| container_volume | 257 |
| creator | TCHOU, Philip M HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner ATKINSON, E. Neely STEPHENS, Tanya W DAVIS, Paul L ARRIBAS, Elsa M GEISER, William R WHITMAN, Gary J |
| description | To prospectively determine the interpretation time associated with computer-aided detection (CAD) and to analyze how CAD affected radiologists' decisions and their level of confidence in their interpretations of digital screening mammograms.
An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained, and patient consent was waived in this HIPAA compliant study. The participating radiologists gave informed consent. Five radiologists were prospectively studied as they interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms. Interpretation times, recall decisions, and confidence levels were recorded without CAD and then with CAD. Software was used for linear regression fitting of interpretation times. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences.
Mean interpretation time without CAD was 118 seconds ± 4.2 (standard error of the mean). Mean time for reviewing CAD images was 23 seconds ± 1.5. CAD identified additional findings in five cases, increased confidence in 38 cases, and decreased confidence in 21 cases. Interpretation time without CAD increased with the number of mammographic views (P < .0001). Mean times for interpretation without CAD and review of the CAD images both increased with the number of CAD marks (P < .0001). The interpreting radiologist was a significant variable for all interpretation times (P < .0001). Interpretation time with CAD increased by 3.2 seconds (95% confidence interval: 1.8, 4.6) for each calcification cluster marked and by 7.3 seconds (95% confidence interval: 4.7, 9.9) for each mass marked.
The additional time required to review CAD images represented a 19% increase in the mean interpretation time without CAD. CAD requires a considerable time investment for digital screening mammography but may provide less measureable benefits in terms of confidence of the radiologists. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1148/radiol.10092170 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_755173244</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>755173244</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c8f5fb2b12ed12f9c2efc83981aeea45f2d8a0efe58f86801989d7e6b7fb3afe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpF0D1PwzAQgGELgWgpzGwoC2JK68_GHlH5aKUiBsocOc65GCVxsJOh_55AW5huuOdueBG6JnhKCJezoEvnqynBWFGS4RM0JoJmKWFEnKIxxoylkhM1QhcxfmJMuJDZORpRPM8U53KMlqumg9AG6HTnfJNsXA2Jt8nC120_bFLtSiiTB-jA_ALdJW8mADSu2SYvuq79Nuj2Y3eJzqyuIlwd5gS9Pz1uFst0_fq8WtyvU8PovEuNtMIWtCAUSkKtMhSskUxJogE0F5aWUmOwIKSVc4mJkqrMYF5ktmDaApugu_3fNvivHmKX1y4aqCrdgO9jnglBMkY5H-RsL03wMQaweRtcrcMuJzj_qZfv6-XHesPFzeF3X9RQ_vljrgHcHoCORlc26Ma4-O8YZRwrxr4BKSB6NQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>755173244</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interpretation Time of Computer-aided Detection at Screening Mammography</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>TCHOU, Philip M ; HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner ; ATKINSON, E. Neely ; STEPHENS, Tanya W ; DAVIS, Paul L ; ARRIBAS, Elsa M ; GEISER, William R ; WHITMAN, Gary J</creator><creatorcontrib>TCHOU, Philip M ; HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner ; ATKINSON, E. Neely ; STEPHENS, Tanya W ; DAVIS, Paul L ; ARRIBAS, Elsa M ; GEISER, William R ; WHITMAN, Gary J</creatorcontrib><description>To prospectively determine the interpretation time associated with computer-aided detection (CAD) and to analyze how CAD affected radiologists' decisions and their level of confidence in their interpretations of digital screening mammograms.
An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained, and patient consent was waived in this HIPAA compliant study. The participating radiologists gave informed consent. Five radiologists were prospectively studied as they interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms. Interpretation times, recall decisions, and confidence levels were recorded without CAD and then with CAD. Software was used for linear regression fitting of interpretation times. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences.
Mean interpretation time without CAD was 118 seconds ± 4.2 (standard error of the mean). Mean time for reviewing CAD images was 23 seconds ± 1.5. CAD identified additional findings in five cases, increased confidence in 38 cases, and decreased confidence in 21 cases. Interpretation time without CAD increased with the number of mammographic views (P < .0001). Mean times for interpretation without CAD and review of the CAD images both increased with the number of CAD marks (P < .0001). The interpreting radiologist was a significant variable for all interpretation times (P < .0001). Interpretation time with CAD increased by 3.2 seconds (95% confidence interval: 1.8, 4.6) for each calcification cluster marked and by 7.3 seconds (95% confidence interval: 4.7, 9.9) for each mass marked.
The additional time required to review CAD images represented a 19% increase in the mean interpretation time without CAD. CAD requires a considerable time investment for digital screening mammography but may provide less measureable benefits in terms of confidence of the radiologists.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-8419</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10092170</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20679448</identifier><identifier>CODEN: RADLAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Clinical Competence ; Decision Making ; Female ; Genital system. Mammary gland ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Linear Models ; Mammary gland diseases ; Mammography ; Medical sciences ; Prospective Studies ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted ; Radiology Information Systems ; Software ; Time Factors ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Radiology, 2010-10, Vol.257 (1), p.40-46</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c8f5fb2b12ed12f9c2efc83981aeea45f2d8a0efe58f86801989d7e6b7fb3afe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c8f5fb2b12ed12f9c2efc83981aeea45f2d8a0efe58f86801989d7e6b7fb3afe3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23234093$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679448$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>TCHOU, Philip M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ATKINSON, E. Neely</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STEPHENS, Tanya W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DAVIS, Paul L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ARRIBAS, Elsa M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GEISER, William R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHITMAN, Gary J</creatorcontrib><title>Interpretation Time of Computer-aided Detection at Screening Mammography</title><title>Radiology</title><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><description>To prospectively determine the interpretation time associated with computer-aided detection (CAD) and to analyze how CAD affected radiologists' decisions and their level of confidence in their interpretations of digital screening mammograms.
An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained, and patient consent was waived in this HIPAA compliant study. The participating radiologists gave informed consent. Five radiologists were prospectively studied as they interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms. Interpretation times, recall decisions, and confidence levels were recorded without CAD and then with CAD. Software was used for linear regression fitting of interpretation times. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences.
Mean interpretation time without CAD was 118 seconds ± 4.2 (standard error of the mean). Mean time for reviewing CAD images was 23 seconds ± 1.5. CAD identified additional findings in five cases, increased confidence in 38 cases, and decreased confidence in 21 cases. Interpretation time without CAD increased with the number of mammographic views (P < .0001). Mean times for interpretation without CAD and review of the CAD images both increased with the number of CAD marks (P < .0001). The interpreting radiologist was a significant variable for all interpretation times (P < .0001). Interpretation time with CAD increased by 3.2 seconds (95% confidence interval: 1.8, 4.6) for each calcification cluster marked and by 7.3 seconds (95% confidence interval: 4.7, 9.9) for each mass marked.
The additional time required to review CAD images represented a 19% increase in the mean interpretation time without CAD. CAD requires a considerable time investment for digital screening mammography but may provide less measureable benefits in terms of confidence of the radiologists.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital system. Mammary gland</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>Mammary gland diseases</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</subject><subject>Radiology Information Systems</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0033-8419</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpF0D1PwzAQgGELgWgpzGwoC2JK68_GHlH5aKUiBsocOc65GCVxsJOh_55AW5huuOdueBG6JnhKCJezoEvnqynBWFGS4RM0JoJmKWFEnKIxxoylkhM1QhcxfmJMuJDZORpRPM8U53KMlqumg9AG6HTnfJNsXA2Jt8nC120_bFLtSiiTB-jA_ALdJW8mADSu2SYvuq79Nuj2Y3eJzqyuIlwd5gS9Pz1uFst0_fq8WtyvU8PovEuNtMIWtCAUSkKtMhSskUxJogE0F5aWUmOwIKSVc4mJkqrMYF5ktmDaApugu_3fNvivHmKX1y4aqCrdgO9jnglBMkY5H-RsL03wMQaweRtcrcMuJzj_qZfv6-XHesPFzeF3X9RQ_vljrgHcHoCORlc26Ma4-O8YZRwrxr4BKSB6NQ</recordid><startdate>20101001</startdate><enddate>20101001</enddate><creator>TCHOU, Philip M</creator><creator>HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner</creator><creator>ATKINSON, E. Neely</creator><creator>STEPHENS, Tanya W</creator><creator>DAVIS, Paul L</creator><creator>ARRIBAS, Elsa M</creator><creator>GEISER, William R</creator><creator>WHITMAN, Gary J</creator><general>Radiological Society of North America</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20101001</creationdate><title>Interpretation Time of Computer-aided Detection at Screening Mammography</title><author>TCHOU, Philip M ; HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner ; ATKINSON, E. Neely ; STEPHENS, Tanya W ; DAVIS, Paul L ; ARRIBAS, Elsa M ; GEISER, William R ; WHITMAN, Gary J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c8f5fb2b12ed12f9c2efc83981aeea45f2d8a0efe58f86801989d7e6b7fb3afe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital system. Mammary gland</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>Mammary gland diseases</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted</topic><topic>Radiology Information Systems</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>TCHOU, Philip M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ATKINSON, E. Neely</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>STEPHENS, Tanya W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DAVIS, Paul L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ARRIBAS, Elsa M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GEISER, William R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHITMAN, Gary J</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>TCHOU, Philip M</au><au>HAYGOOD, Tamara Miner</au><au>ATKINSON, E. Neely</au><au>STEPHENS, Tanya W</au><au>DAVIS, Paul L</au><au>ARRIBAS, Elsa M</au><au>GEISER, William R</au><au>WHITMAN, Gary J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Interpretation Time of Computer-aided Detection at Screening Mammography</atitle><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><date>2010-10-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>257</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>40</spage><epage>46</epage><pages>40-46</pages><issn>0033-8419</issn><eissn>1527-1315</eissn><coden>RADLAX</coden><abstract>To prospectively determine the interpretation time associated with computer-aided detection (CAD) and to analyze how CAD affected radiologists' decisions and their level of confidence in their interpretations of digital screening mammograms.
An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained, and patient consent was waived in this HIPAA compliant study. The participating radiologists gave informed consent. Five radiologists were prospectively studied as they interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms. Interpretation times, recall decisions, and confidence levels were recorded without CAD and then with CAD. Software was used for linear regression fitting of interpretation times. P values less than .05 were considered to indicate statistically significant differences.
Mean interpretation time without CAD was 118 seconds ± 4.2 (standard error of the mean). Mean time for reviewing CAD images was 23 seconds ± 1.5. CAD identified additional findings in five cases, increased confidence in 38 cases, and decreased confidence in 21 cases. Interpretation time without CAD increased with the number of mammographic views (P < .0001). Mean times for interpretation without CAD and review of the CAD images both increased with the number of CAD marks (P < .0001). The interpreting radiologist was a significant variable for all interpretation times (P < .0001). Interpretation time with CAD increased by 3.2 seconds (95% confidence interval: 1.8, 4.6) for each calcification cluster marked and by 7.3 seconds (95% confidence interval: 4.7, 9.9) for each mass marked.
The additional time required to review CAD images represented a 19% increase in the mean interpretation time without CAD. CAD requires a considerable time investment for digital screening mammography but may provide less measureable benefits in terms of confidence of the radiologists.</abstract><cop>Oak Brook, IL</cop><pub>Radiological Society of North America</pub><pmid>20679448</pmid><doi>10.1148/radiol.10092170</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0033-8419 |
| ispartof | Radiology, 2010-10, Vol.257 (1), p.40-46 |
| issn | 0033-8419 1527-1315 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_755173244 |
| source | MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Algorithms Biological and medical sciences Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Clinical Competence Decision Making Female Genital system. Mammary gland Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Linear Models Mammary gland diseases Mammography Medical sciences Prospective Studies Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted Radiology Information Systems Software Time Factors Tumors |
| title | Interpretation Time of Computer-aided Detection at Screening Mammography |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T08%3A29%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interpretation%20Time%20of%20Computer-aided%20Detection%20at%20Screening%20Mammography&rft.jtitle=Radiology&rft.au=TCHOU,%20Philip%20M&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=257&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=40&rft.epage=46&rft.pages=40-46&rft.issn=0033-8419&rft.eissn=1527-1315&rft.coden=RADLAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148/radiol.10092170&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E755173244%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=755173244&rft_id=info:pmid/20679448&rfr_iscdi=true |