Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset

November 13, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› European Radiology

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Daniela Sacchetto, Lia Morra, Silvano Agliozzo, Daniela Bernardi, Tomas Bjorklund, Beniamino Brancato, Patrizia Bravetti, Luca A. Carbonaro, Loredana Correale, Carmen FantΓ², Elisabetta Favettini, Laura Martincich, Luisella Milanesio, Sara Mombelloni, Francesco Monetti, Doralba Morrone, Marco Pellegrini, Barbara Pesce, Antonella Petrillo, Gianni Saguatti, Carmen Stevanin, Rubina M. Trimboli, Paola Tuttobene, Marvi Valentini, Vincenzo Marra, Alfonso Frigerio, Alberto Bert, Francesco Sardanelli arXiv ID 1811.05324 Category physics.med-ph Cross-listed cs.CV Citations 17 Venue European Radiology Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
Objectives: To compare breast density (BD) assessment provided by an automated BD evaluator (ABDE) with that provided by a panel of experienced breast radiologists, on a multivendor dataset. Methods: Twenty-one radiologists assessed 613 screening/diagnostic digital mammograms from 9 centers and 6 different vendors, using the BI-RADS a, b, c, and d density classification. The same mammograms were also evaluated by an ABDE providing the ratio between fibroglandular and total breast area on a continuous scale and, automatically, the BI-RADS score. Panel majority report (PMR) was used as reference standard. Agreement (k) and accuracy (proportion of cases correctly classified) were calculated for binary (BI-RADS a-b versus c-d) and 4-class classification. Results: While the agreement of individual radiologists with PMR ranged from k=0.483 to k=0.885, the ABDE correctly classified 563/613 mammograms (92%). A substantial agreement for binary classification was found for individual reader pairs (k=0.620, standard deviation [SD]=0.140), individual versus PMR (k=0.736, SD=0.117), and individual versus ABDE (k=0.674, SD=0.095). Agreement between ABDE and PMR was almost perfect (k=0.831). Conclusions: The ABDE showed an almost perfect agreement with a 21-radiologist panel in binary BD classification on a multivendor dataset, earning a chance as a reproducible alternative to visual evaluation.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” physics.med-ph

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted