4.7 Article

Automatic Tuberculosis Screening Using Chest Radiographs

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 233-245

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2013.2284099

Keywords

Computer-aided detection and diagnosis; lung; pattern recognition and classification; segmentation; tuberculosis (TB); X-ray imaging

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. National Library of Medicine (NLM)
  3. Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications (LHNCBC)
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) [R33-EB00573]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tuberculosis is a major health threat in many regions of the world. Opportunistic infections in immunocompromised HIV/AIDS patients and multi-drug-resistant bacterial strains have exacerbated the problem, while diagnosing tuberculosis still remains a challenge. When left undiagnosed and thus untreated, mortality rates of patients with tuberculosis are high. Standard diagnostics still rely on methods developed in the last century. They are slow and often unreliable. In an effort to reduce the burden of the disease, this paper presents our automated approach for detecting tuberculosis in conventional posteroanterior chest radiographs. We first extract the lung region using a graph cut segmentation method. For this lung region, we compute a set of texture and shape features, which enable the X-rays to be classified as normal or abnormal using a binary classifier. We measure the performance of our system on two datasets: a set collected by the tuberculosis control program of our local county's health department in the United States, and a set collected by Shenzhen Hospital, China. The proposed computer-aided diagnostic system for TB screening, which is ready for field deployment, achieves a performance that approaches the performance of human experts. We achieve an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 87% (78.3% accuracy) for the first set, and an AUC of 90% (84% accuracy) for the second set. For the first set, we compare our system performance with the performance of radiologists. When trying not to miss any positive cases, radiologists achieve an accuracy of about 82% on this set, and their false positive rate is about half of our system's rate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available