Cargando…

Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists

BACKGROUND: The study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a state‐of‐the‐art commercial deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing pulmonary nodules. METHODS: Pulmonary nodules in 346 healthy subjects (male: female = 221:125, mean age 51 ye...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Li, Liu, Zhou, Huang, Hua, Lin, Meng, Luo, Dehong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30536611
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.12931
_version_ 1783392432063250432
author Li, Li
Liu, Zhou
Huang, Hua
Lin, Meng
Luo, Dehong
author_facet Li, Li
Liu, Zhou
Huang, Hua
Lin, Meng
Luo, Dehong
author_sort Li, Li
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a state‐of‐the‐art commercial deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing pulmonary nodules. METHODS: Pulmonary nodules in 346 healthy subjects (male: female = 221:125, mean age 51 years) from a lung cancer screening program conducted from March to November 2017 were screened using a DL‐CAD system and double reading independently, and their performance in nodule detection and characterization were evaluated. An expert panel combined the results of the DL‐CAD system and double reading as the reference standard. RESULTS: The DL‐CAD system showed a higher detection rate than double reading, regardless of nodule size (86.2% vs. 79.2%; P < 0.001): nodules ≥ 5 mm (96.5% vs. 88.0%; P = 0.008); nodules < 5 mm (84.3% vs. 77.5%; P < 0.001). However, the false positive rate (per computed tomography scan) of the DL‐CAD system (1.53, 529/346) was considerably higher than that of double reading (0.13, 44/346; P < 0.001). Regarding nodule characterization, the sensitivity and specificity of the DL‐CAD system for distinguishing solid nodules > 5 mm (90.3% and 100.0%, respectively) and ground‐glass nodules (100.0% and 96.1%, respectively) were close to that of double reading, but dropped to 55.5% and 93%, respectively, when discriminating part solid nodules. CONCLUSION: Our DL‐CAD system detected significantly more nodules than double reading. In the future, false positive findings should be further reduced and characterization accuracy improved.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6360226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63602262019-02-14 Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists Li, Li Liu, Zhou Huang, Hua Lin, Meng Luo, Dehong Thorac Cancer Original Articles BACKGROUND: The study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a state‐of‐the‐art commercial deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing pulmonary nodules. METHODS: Pulmonary nodules in 346 healthy subjects (male: female = 221:125, mean age 51 years) from a lung cancer screening program conducted from March to November 2017 were screened using a DL‐CAD system and double reading independently, and their performance in nodule detection and characterization were evaluated. An expert panel combined the results of the DL‐CAD system and double reading as the reference standard. RESULTS: The DL‐CAD system showed a higher detection rate than double reading, regardless of nodule size (86.2% vs. 79.2%; P < 0.001): nodules ≥ 5 mm (96.5% vs. 88.0%; P = 0.008); nodules < 5 mm (84.3% vs. 77.5%; P < 0.001). However, the false positive rate (per computed tomography scan) of the DL‐CAD system (1.53, 529/346) was considerably higher than that of double reading (0.13, 44/346; P < 0.001). Regarding nodule characterization, the sensitivity and specificity of the DL‐CAD system for distinguishing solid nodules > 5 mm (90.3% and 100.0%, respectively) and ground‐glass nodules (100.0% and 96.1%, respectively) were close to that of double reading, but dropped to 55.5% and 93%, respectively, when discriminating part solid nodules. CONCLUSION: Our DL‐CAD system detected significantly more nodules than double reading. In the future, false positive findings should be further reduced and characterization accuracy improved. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2018-12-08 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6360226/ /pubmed/30536611 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.12931 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Li, Li
Liu, Zhou
Huang, Hua
Lin, Meng
Luo, Dehong
Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists
title Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists
title_full Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists
title_fullStr Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists
title_short Evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (DL‐CAD) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: Comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists
title_sort evaluating the performance of a deep learning‐based computer‐aided diagnosis (dl‐cad) system for detecting and characterizing lung nodules: comparison with the performance of double reading by radiologists
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30536611
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.12931
work_keys_str_mv AT lili evaluatingtheperformanceofadeeplearningbasedcomputeraideddiagnosisdlcadsystemfordetectingandcharacterizinglungnodulescomparisonwiththeperformanceofdoublereadingbyradiologists
AT liuzhou evaluatingtheperformanceofadeeplearningbasedcomputeraideddiagnosisdlcadsystemfordetectingandcharacterizinglungnodulescomparisonwiththeperformanceofdoublereadingbyradiologists
AT huanghua evaluatingtheperformanceofadeeplearningbasedcomputeraideddiagnosisdlcadsystemfordetectingandcharacterizinglungnodulescomparisonwiththeperformanceofdoublereadingbyradiologists
AT linmeng evaluatingtheperformanceofadeeplearningbasedcomputeraideddiagnosisdlcadsystemfordetectingandcharacterizinglungnodulescomparisonwiththeperformanceofdoublereadingbyradiologists
AT luodehong evaluatingtheperformanceofadeeplearningbasedcomputeraideddiagnosisdlcadsystemfordetectingandcharacterizinglungnodulescomparisonwiththeperformanceofdoublereadingbyradiologists