Expert system-controlled image display.

Swett, Henry A.; Fisher, Paul R.; Cohn, Aaron I.; Miller, P. L.; Mutalik, Pradeep

doi:10.1148/radiology.172.2.2664871

Cited by 56 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We believe that training, nomenclature (lexicon), image representations (teaching files), and defined relationships (ontology) will promote more uniform detection, characterization, and reporting of important spine MR imaging features. We recommend that a just-in-time learning apparatus be used by providing imaging galleries of representative cases and illustrative examples that cover the spectrum of abnormalities, as described elsewhere (26). This apparatus could be implemented as an online teaching file and as a decision support tool for clinical work.…”

Section: Musculoskeletal Imaging: Mr Imaging Of Lumbar Spinementioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar Spine: Reliability of MR Imaging Findings

Carrino¹,

Lurie²,

Tosteson³

et al. 2009

Radiology

174

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To characterize the inter-and intraobserver variability of qualitative, non-disk contour degenerative findings of the lumbar spine at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods:The case accrual method used to perform this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was the random selection of 111 interpretable MR examination cases of subjects from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial. The subjects were aged 18 -87 years (mean, 53 years Ϯ 16 [standard deviation]). Four independent readers rated the cases according to defined criteria. A subsample of 40 MR examination cases was selected for reevaluation at least 1 month later. The following findings were assessed: spondylolisthesis, disk degeneration, marrow endplate abnormality (Modic changes), posterior anular hyperintense zone (HIZ), and facet arthropathy. Inter-and intraobserver agreement in rating the data was summarized by using weighted statistics. Results:Interobserver agreement was good ( ϭ 0.66) in rating disk degeneration and moderate in rating spondylolisthesis ( Conclusion:The interpretation of general lumbar spine MR characteristics has sufficient reliability to warrant the further evaluation of these features as potential prognostic indicators.

show abstract

Section: Musculoskeletal Imaging: Mr Imaging Of Lumbar Spinementioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar Spine: Reliability of MR Imaging Findings

Carrino¹,

Lurie²,

Tosteson³

et al. 2009

Radiology

174

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4] In order to develop a useful tool for selecting similar images to be used as a diagnostic aid, many investigators have studied content-based or featurebased image retrieval methods. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] However, these retrieval methods did not take into account radiologists' subjective impression of similarity when two images are compared. If retrieved images were not really similar to an unknown lesion visually for clinical purposes, they would not be useful for radiologists in the differential diagnosis of the unknown lesion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Objective Similarity Measures for Selecting Similar Images of Mammographic Lesions

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate four objective similarity measures as an image retrieval tool for selecting lesions similar to unknown lesions on mammograms. Measures A and B were based on the Euclidean distance in feature space and the psychophysical similarity measure, respectively. Measure C was the sequential combination of B and A, whereas measure D was the sequential combination of A and B. In this study, we selected 100 lesions each for masses and clustered microcalcifications randomly from our database, and we selected five pairs of lesions from 4,950 pairs based on all combinations of the 100 lesions by use of each measure. In two observer studies for 20 mass pairs and 20 calcification pairs, six radiologists compared all combinations of 20 pairs by using a two-alternative forced-choice method to determine the subjective similarity ranking score which was obtained from the frequency with which a pair was considered as more similar than the other 19 pairs. In both mass and calcification pairs, pairs selected by use of measure D had the highest mean value of the average subjective similarity ranking scores. The difference between measures D and A (P = 0.008 and 0.024), as well as that between measures D and B (P = 0.018 and 0.028) were statistically significant for masses and microcalcifications, respectively. The sequential combination of the objective similarity measure based on the Euclidean distance and the psychophysical similarity measure would be useful in the selection of images similar to those of unknown lesions.

show abstract

“…In fact, some studies [24][25][26][27] indicate that radiologists' diagnostic performance can be improved by the presentation of similar images. Several groups [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] have investigated image retrieval methods, most of which are based on the distance in image feature space.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presentation of similar images for diagnosis of breast masses on mammograms: analysis of the effect on residents

Muramatsu

Schmidt

Shiraishi

et al. 2009

Medical Imaging 2009: Computer-Aided Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have been developing a computerized scheme for selecting visually similar images that would be useful to radiologists in the diagnosis of masses on mammograms. Based on the results of the observer performance study, the presentation of similar images was useful, especially for less experienced observers. The test cases included 50 benign and 50 malignant masses. Ten observers, including five breast radiologists and five residents, were asked to provide the confidence level of the lesions being malignant before and after the presentation of similar images. By use of multireader, multi-case receiver operating characteristic analysis, the average areas under the curves for the five residents were 0.880 and 0.896 without and with similar images, respectively (p=0.040). There were four malignant cases in which the initial ratings were relatively low, but the similar images alerted the residents to increase their confidence levels of malignancy close to those by the breast radiologists. The presentation of similar images may cause some observers falsely to increase their suspicion for some benign cases; however, if similar images can alert radiologists to recognize the signs of malignancy and also help them to decrease their suspicion correctly for some benign cases, they can be useful in the diagnosis on mammograms.

show abstract

Expert system-controlled image display.

Cited by 56 publications

References 0 publications

Lumbar Spine: Reliability of MR Imaging Findings

Lumbar Spine: Reliability of MR Imaging Findings

Evaluation of Objective Similarity Measures for Selecting Similar Images of Mammographic Lesions

Presentation of similar images for diagnosis of breast masses on mammograms: analysis of the effect on residents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About