Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system for diagnosis of previously detected lesions, based on radiologist-extracted findings on masses and calcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A feed-forward, back-propagation artificial neural network (BP-ANN) was trained in a round-robin (leave-one-out) manner to predict biopsy outcome from mammographic findings (according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) and patient age. The BP-ANN was trained by using a large (>1,000 cases) heterogeneous data set containing masses and microcalcifications. The performances of the BP-ANN on masses and microcalcifications were compared with use of receiver operating characteristic analysis and a z test for uncorrelated samples. RESULTS: The BP-ANN performed significantly better on masses than microcalcifications in terms of both the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the partial receiver operating characteristic area index. A similar difference in performance was observed with a second model (linear discriminant analysis) and also with a second data set from a similar institution. CONCLUSION: Masses and calcifications should be considered separately when evaluating CAD systems for breast cancer diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Markey et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: