Cargando…
Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that o...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Nature Singapore
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36001270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01396-4 |
_version_ | 1784863843232514048 |
---|---|
author | Uematsu, Takayoshi Nakashima, Kazuaki Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo Nasu, Hatsuko Igarashi, Tatsuya |
author_facet | Uematsu, Takayoshi Nakashima, Kazuaki Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo Nasu, Hatsuko Igarashi, Tatsuya |
author_sort | Uematsu, Takayoshi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting. METHODS: We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels. CONCLUSIONS: AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9813027 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Nature Singapore |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98130272023-01-06 Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting Uematsu, Takayoshi Nakashima, Kazuaki Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo Nasu, Hatsuko Igarashi, Tatsuya Breast Cancer Original Article BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether original full-field digital mammograms (DMs) can be replaced with synthesized mammograms in both screening and diagnostic settings. To compare reader performance of artificial intelligence computer-aided detection synthesized mammograms (AI CAD SMs) with that of DM alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in an experimental setting. METHODS: We compared the performance of multireader (n = 4) and reading multicase (n = 388), in 84 cancers, 83 biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 221 normal or benign cases with negative results after 1-year follow-up. Each reading was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT. The accuracy of probability of malignancy (POM) and five-category ratings were evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: The mean AUC values based on POM for DM, AI CAD SM, DM + DBT, and AI CAD SM + DBT were 0.871, 0.902, 0.895, and 0.909, respectively. The mean AUC of AI CAD SM was significantly higher (P = 0.002) than that of DM. For calcification lesions, the sensitivity of SM and DM did not differ significantly (P = 0.204). The mean AUC for AI CAD SM + DBT was higher than that of DM + DBT (P = 0.082). ROC curves based on the five-category ratings showed similar proximity of the overall performance levels. CONCLUSIONS: AI CAD SM alone was superior to DM alone. Also, AI CAD SM + DBT was superior to DM + DBT but not statistically significant. Springer Nature Singapore 2022-08-24 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9813027/ /pubmed/36001270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01396-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Uematsu, Takayoshi Nakashima, Kazuaki Harada, Taiyo Leopoldo Nasu, Hatsuko Igarashi, Tatsuya Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting |
title | Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting |
title_full | Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting |
title_fullStr | Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting |
title_full_unstemmed | Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting |
title_short | Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting |
title_sort | artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9813027/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36001270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01396-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT uematsutakayoshi artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting AT nakashimakazuaki artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting AT haradataiyoleopoldo artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting AT nasuhatsuko artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting AT igarashitatsuya artificialintelligencecomputeraideddetectionenhancessynthesizedmammogramscomparisonwithoriginaldigitalmammogramsaloneandincombinationwithtomosynthesisimagesinanexperimentalsetting |