BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2004) 77, S194-S200
© 2004 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/30116822

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Astley, S M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Astley, S M

Full Paper

Computer-based detection and prompting of mammographic abnormalities

S M Astley, PhD

Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK

Mammographic film reading is a highly demanding task, particularly in screening programmes where the reader must perform a detailed visual search of a large number of images for early signs of abnormality, which are often subtle or small, and which occur very infrequently. False negative cases, where signs of abnormality are missed by a film reader, are known to occur. Computer based algorithms can be used to detect abnormal patterns in images, but it is not possible to reliably detect all signs of abnormality in mammograms, so screening cannot yet be fully automated. The most successful detection algorithms are, however, incorporated in computer-aided detection (CAD) systems which indicate potentially abnormal locations to the reader in a process known as prompting. CAD systems have the capacity to reduce the frequency of false negative errors by ensuring that suspicious regions of the images are thoroughly searched and by increasing the weighting attached to subtle signs that may otherwise have been dismissed. One of the areas currently being researched is the effect of prompting on human performance. This is complex, since readers are presented with prompts generated by multiple detection algorithms, each of which has a different sensitivity and specificity. This paper reviews progress in abnormality detection, the strengths and the weaknesses of CAD, and the methodologies used to evaluate CAD in a clinical setting.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. Georgian-Smith, R. H. Moore, E. Halpern, E. D. Yeh, E. A. Rafferty, H. A. D'Alessandro, M. Staffa, D. A. Hall, K. A. McCarthy, and D. B. Kopans
Blinded Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection with Human Second Reading in Screening Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1135 - 1141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
N Karssemeijer, J D M Otten, H Rijken, and R Holland
Computer aided detection of masses in mammograms as decision support
Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2006; 79(Special_Issue_2): S123 - S126.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2004 by the British Institute of Radiology.