• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Radiology >CT colonography: Preliminary assessment of a double-read paradigm that uses computer-aided detection as the first reader
【24h】

CT colonography: Preliminary assessment of a double-read paradigm that uses computer-aided detection as the first reader

机译：CT结肠造影：使用计算机辅助检测作为第一个阅读器的双读范例的初步评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose: To compare diagnostic performance and time efficiency of double-reading first-reader computer-aided detection (CAD) (DR FR CAD) followed by radiologist interpretation with that of an unassisted read using segmentally unblinded colonoscopy as reference standard. Materials and Methods: The local ethical committee approved this study. Written consent to use examinations was obtained from patients. Three experienced radiologists searched for polyps 6 mm or larger in 155 computed tomographic (CT) colonographic studies (57 containing 10 masses and 79 polyps ≤6 mm). Reading was randomized to either unassisted read or DR FR CAD. Data sets were reread 6 weeks later by using the opposite paradigm. DR FR CAD consists of evaluation of CAD prompts, followed by fast two-dimensional review for mass detection. CAD sensitivity was calculated. Readers' diagnoses and reviewing times with and without CAD were compared by using McNemar and Student t tests, respectively. Association between missed polyps and lesion characteristics was explored with multiple regression analysis. Results: With mean rate of 19 (standard deviation, 14; median, 15; range, 4-127) false-positive results per patient, CAD sensitivity was 90% for lesions 6 mm or larger. Readers' sensitivity and specificity for lesions 6 mm or larger were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65%, 84%) and 93% (95% CI: 89%, 97%), respectively, for the unassisted read and 77% (95% CI: 67%, 85%) and 90% (95% CI: 85%, 95%), respectively, for DR FR CAD (P = .343 and P = .189, respectively). Overall unassisted and DR FR CAD reviewing times were similar (243 vs 239 seconds; P = .623); DR FR CAD was faster when the number of CAD marks per patient was 20 or fewer (187 vs 220 seconds, P < .01). Odds ratio of missing a polyp with CAD decreased as polyp size increased (0.6) and for polyps visible on both prone and supine scans (0.12); it increased for flat lesions (9.1). Conclusion: DR FR CAD paradigm had similar performance compared with unassisted interpretation but better time efficiency when 20 or fewer CAD prompts per patient were generated.
机译：目的：比较先读后阅读的计算机辅助辅助检查（CAD）（DR FR CAD）的诊断性能和时间效率，然后将放射学解释与使用分段无盲肠镜作为参考标准的无辅助读数进行比较。材料和方法：当地伦理委员会批准了本研究。从患者获得使用许可的书面同意。三名经验丰富的放射科医生在155项计算机断层扫描（CT）结肠造影研究中搜索了6 mm或更大的息肉（57个包含10个肿块和79个≤6mm的息肉）。阅读被随机分为非辅助阅读或DR FR CAD。 6周后，使用相反的范例重新读取数据集。 DR FR CAD包括对CAD提示的评估，然后进行快速的二维检查以进行质量检测。计算CAD敏感性。使用McNemar和Student t检验分别比较有无CAD情况下​​读者的诊断和复查时间。多元回归分析探讨了息肉与病变特征之间的关联。结果：每位患者的假阳性平均率为19（标准差为14;中位数为15;范围为4-127），对于6毫米或更大的病变，CAD敏感性为90％。对于非辅助阅读，读者对6毫米或更大的病变的敏感性和特异性分别为74％（95％置信区间[CI]：65％，84％）和93％（95％CI：89％，97％）。对于DR FR CAD，分别为77％（95％CI：67％，85％）和90％（95％CI：85％，95％）（分别为P = 0.343和P = .189）。总的无助和DR FR CAD复查时间相似（243 vs 239秒; P = .623）;当每个患者的CAD标记数量为20个或更少时（187对220秒，P <0.01），DR FR CAD更快。随着息肉大小的增加（0.6），俯卧和仰卧扫描均可见的息肉（0.12），CAD遗失息肉的几率降低。对于扁平病变，它增加（9.1）。结论：与无辅助解释相比，DR FR CAD范例具有相似的性能，但每位患者产生20个或更少的CAD提示时，其时间效率更高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号