280 Sensitivity Comparison Between Human Readers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Software in the Detection of Polyps in Large-Scale Multicenter Clinical Trials On Virtual Colonoscopy

2008 ◽  
Vol 134 (4) ◽  
pp. A-38
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Yoshida ◽  
Janne Näppi ◽  
Koichi Nagata ◽  
Don C. Rockey
Radiology ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 213 (3) ◽  
pp. 723-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heber MacMahon ◽  
Roger Engelmann ◽  
Fred M. Behlen ◽  
Kenneth R. Hoffmann ◽  
Takayuki Ishida ◽  
...  

Radiographics ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Abe ◽  
Heber MacMahon ◽  
Roger Engelmann ◽  
Qiang Li ◽  
Junji Shiraishi ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Tianyi Li ◽  
Wei Wei ◽  
Lidan Cheng ◽  
Shengjie Zhao ◽  
Chuanjun Xu ◽  
...  

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is highly contagious and pathogenic. Currently, the diagnosis of COVID-19 is based on nucleic acid testing, but it has false negatives and hysteresis. The use of lung CT scans can help screen and effectively monitor diagnosed cases. The application of computer-aided diagnosis technology can reduce the burden on doctors, which is conducive to rapid and large-scale diagnostic screening. In this paper, we proposed an automatic detection method for COVID-19 based on spatiotemporal information fusion. Using the segmentation network in the deep learning method to segment the lung area and the lesion area, the spatiotemporal information features of multiple CT scans are extracted to perform auxiliary diagnosis analysis. The performance of this method was verified on the collected dataset. We achieved the classification of COVID-19 CT scans and non-COVID-19 CT scans and analyzed the development of the patients’ condition through the CT scans. The average accuracy rate is 96.7%, sensitivity is 95.2%, and F1 score is 95.9%. Each scan takes about 30 seconds for detection.


1972 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 32-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. T. DE DOMBAL ◽  
J. C. HORROCKS ◽  
J. R. STANILAND ◽  
P. J. GUILLOU

This paper describes a series of 10,500 attempts at »pattern-recognition« by two groups of humans and a computer based system. There was little difference between the performances of 11 clinicians and 11 other persons of comparable intellectual capability. Both groups’ performances were related to the pattern-size, the accuracy diminishing rapidly as the patterns grew larger. By contrast the computer system increased its accuracy as the patterns increased in size.It is suggested (a) that clinicians are very little better than others at pattem-recognition, (b) that the clinician is incapable of analysing on a probabilistic basis the data he collects during a traditional clinical interview and examination and (c) that the study emphasises once again a major difference between human and computer performance. The implications as - regards human- and computer-aided diagnosis are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document