文章基本信息

标题：Short-term Reproducibility of Pulmonary Nodule and Mass Detection in Chest Radiographs: Comparison among Radiologists and Four Different Computer-Aided Detections with Convolutional Neural Net
本地全文：下载
作者：Young-Gon Kim ; Yongwon Cho ; Chen-Jiang Wu 等
期刊名称：Scientific Reports
电子版ISSN：2045-2322
出版年度：2019
卷号：9
期号：1
页码：1-9
DOI：10.1038/s41598-019-55373-7
出版社：Springer Nature
摘要：To investigate the reproducibility of computer-aided detection (CAD) for detection of pulmonary nodules and masses for consecutive chest radiographies (CXRs) of the same patient within a short-term period. A total of 944 CXRs (Chest PA) with nodules and masses, recorded between January 2010 and November 2016 at the Asan Medical Center, were obtained. In all, 1092 regions of interest for the nodules and mass were delineated using an in-house software. All CXRs were randomly split into 6:2:2 sets for training, development, and validation. Furthermore, paired follow-up CXRs (n = 121) acquired within one week in the validation set, in which expert thoracic radiologists confirmed no changes, were used to evaluate the reproducibility of CAD by two radiologists (R1 and R2). The reproducibility comparison of four different convolutional neural net algorithms and two chest radiologists (with 13- and 14-years' experience) was conducted. Model performances were evaluated by figure-of-merit (FOM) analysis of the jackknife free-response receiver operating curve and reproducibility rates were evaluated in terms of percent positive agreement (PPA) and Chamberlain's percent positive agreement (CPPA). Reproducibility analysis of the four CADs and R1 and R2 showed variations in the PPA and CPPA. Model performance of YOLO (You Only Look Once) v2 based eDenseYOLO showed a higher FOM (0.89; 0.85-0.93) than RetinaNet (0.89; 0.85-0.93) and atrous spatial pyramid pooling U-Net (0.85; 0.80-0.89). eDenseYOLO showed higher PPAs (97.87%) and CPPAs (95.80%) than Mask R-CNN, RetinaNet, ASSP U-Net, R1, and R2 (PPA: 96.52%, 94.23%, 95.04%, 96.55%, and 94.98%; CPPA: 93.18%, 89.09%, 90.57%, 93.33%, and 90.43%). There were moderate variations in the reproducibility of CAD with different algorithms, which likely indicates that measurement of reproducibility is necessary for evaluating CAD performance in actual clinical environments.