English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Radiologists’ diagnostic capabilities for breast mass lesions depend on their experience. Junior radiologists may underestimate or overestimate Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories of mass lesions owing to a lack of diagnostic experience. The computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) method assists in improving diagnostic performance by providing a breast mass classification reference to radiologists. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a CAD method based on perceptive features learned from quantitative BI-RADS descriptions on breast mass diagnosis performance. We conducted a retrospective multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study to assess the perceptive feature-based CAD method. A total of 416 digital mammograms of patients with breast masses were obtained from 2014 through 2017, including 231 benign and 185 malignant masses, from which we randomly selected 214 cases (109 benign, 105 malignant) to train the CAD model for perceptive feature extraction and classification. The remaining 202 cases were enrolled as the test set for evaluation, of which 51 patients (29 benign and 22 malignant) participated in the MRMC study. In the MRMC study, we categorized six radiologists into three groups: junior, middle-senior, and senior. They diagnosed 51 patients with and without support from the CAD model. The BI-RADS category, benign or malignant diagnosis, malignancy probability, and diagnosis time during the two evaluation sessions were recorded. In the MRMC evaluation, the average area under the curve (AUC) of the six radiologists with CAD support was slightly higher than that without support (0.896 vs. 0.850, p = 0.0209). Both average sensitivity and specificity increased (p = 0.0253). Under CAD assistance, junior and middle-senior radiologists adjusted the assessment categories of more BI-RADS 4 cases. The diagnosis time with and without CAD support was comparable for five radiologists. The CAD model improved the radiologists’ diagnostic performance for breast masses without prolonging the diagnosis time and assisted in a better BI-RADS assessment, especially for junior radiologists.

frontiers in oncology

Can a Computer-Aided Mass Diagnosis Model Based on Perceptive Features Learned From Quantitative Mammography Radiology Reports Improve Junior Radiologists’ Diagnosis Performance? An Observer Study