4.5 Article

Improved Accuracy of Pulmonary Embolism Computer-Aided Detection Using Iterative Reconstruction Compared With Filtered Back Projection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 203, 期 4, 页码 763-771

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.11838

关键词

computer-aided detection; CT; iterative reconstruction; pulmonary embolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine whether use of iterative reconstruction (IR) can improve performance of a pulmonary embolism computer-aided detection (PE CAD) prototype. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Images were collected from 40 consecutive pulmonary CT angiographic examinations in which PE was found and 26 studies in which it was not found for use as control cases. All images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and six levels of a hybrid IR algorithm. The studies were evaluated with a prototype PE CAD system, and its performance was comparatively assessed on the basis of reconstruction type on a per-embolus and a per-study basis. RESULTS. Use of the hybrid IR algorithm led to a significant and progressive decrease in false-positive marks made by PE CAD compared with those made by radiologists on FBP reconstructions (239 false-positive marks for FBP and 154, 136, 125, 116, 107, and 98 false-positive marks for the six hybrid IR [HIR] levels). Specificity improved with increasing HIR level (45.6% for level 6; 30.3% for FBP). However, compared with FBP, increasing levels of HIR resulted in a progressive decrease in per-embolism sensitivity (70.3% for FBP; 55.4% for HIR level 6) and, with the exception of HIR level 4, a progressive decrease in per-study sensitivity (97.5% for FBP; 85.0% for HIR level 6). Overall accuracy was highest for HIR level 1 (77.3%). CONCLUSION. The use of IR leads to a significant reduction in false-positive marks by PE CAD at a cost of decreasing sensitivity. Very high levels of IR, which had the lowest sensitivities, should be avoided if being used concomitantly with PE CAD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据