The Use of Computer-Aided Detection for the Assessment of Pulmonary Arterial Filling Defects at Computed Tomographic Angiography
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: To validate a computer-aided detection (CAD) tool for the detection of pulmonary arterial filling defects at computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and to assess its benefit for readers of different levels of experience. METHODS: One hundred consecutive CTPA studies were retrospectively evaluated by a chest radiologist for presence of emboli, serving as the reference standard. Subsequently, examinations were analyzed using commercially available second-generation CAD software (ImageChecker CT, version 2.1; R2 Technology, Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif). The staff radiologist assessed all CAD marks and classified them as true positive or false positive (FP), and any unmarked emboli were classified as false negative. Computer-aided detection software was also evaluated on a case basis compared with the reference standard.For the second part of the study, the 100 CTPAs were reviewed by 3 additional readers of different levels of experience, both without and with CAD, and findings correlated with the reference standard. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (21%) were positive for pulmonary embolism. Of these, 18 were true positive on a case basis, and 3 were false negative. Of the 79 negative studies, 16 were true negative with no CAD marks, and the remaining 63 were FP. On a case basis, CAD sensitivity was 86%, specificity was 20%, negative predictive value was 84%, and positive predictive value (PPV) was 22%.Overall, the CAD software yielded 318 marks, identifying 64 of 93 emboli with an additional 254 FP marks. On a mark basis, sensitivity was 69%, and PPV was 20%.Computer-aided detection did not influence the most experienced reader (a chest fellow). Although CAD improved the subjective confidence of the second-year resident in some cases, it had no influence on overall interpretation or accuracy. Computer-aided detection improved accuracy only for the most inexperienced reader, helping this reader to identify 9 emboli not initially appreciated. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-aided detection specificity and PPV are poor due to expected FP marks, although, often, these can be easily dismissed. However, CAD software may play an important role as a second reader for residents or inexperienced readers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle