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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |