BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

Published online before print January 7, 2008
British Journal of Radiology 2008, doi:10.1259/bjr/93375459

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid 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 Taylor, S A
Right arrow Articles by Halligan, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, S A
Right arrow Articles by Halligan, S
© 2007 The British Institute of Radiology

Full paper

Computer-aided detection (CAD) for CT colonography: incremental benefit of observer training

S A Taylor 1, D Burling 2, M Roddie 3, L Honeyfield 3, J Mcquillan 3, P Bassett 2, S Halligan 1

1 Department of Specialist Radiology, University College Hospital, Euston Road, London NW1 2BU
2 Intestinal Imaging Centre, St. Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, London HA1 3UJ
3 Medicsight PLC, Berkeley Square, London W1J 5AT, UK


   Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the incremental effect of focused training on observer performance when using computer-assisted detection (CAD) software to interpret CT colonography (CTC). Six radiologists who were relatively inexperienced with CTC interpretation underwent 1 day of focused training before reading 20 patient datasets with the assistance of CAD software (ColonCAR 1.3, Medicsight PLC). Sensitivity, specificity and interpretation times were determined and compared with previous performance when reading the same datasets but without the benefit of focused training, using the binomial exact test and Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Per-polyp sensitivity improved after training by 18% overall (95% confidence interval (CI): 14–24%, p<0.001) and was greatest for polyps of 6–9 mm (26%, 95% CI: 18–34%, p<0.001). Absolute sensitivity was 23% (9–36%), 51% (33–71%) and 74% (44–100%) for polyps of ≤5 mm, 6–9 mm and ≥10 mm respectively. Specificity fell significantly after focused training (median of 5.5 false positives per 20 datasets (interquartile range (IQR): 4–6) post-training vs median of 2.5 (IQR: 1–5) pre-training, p = 0.03). Interpretation time also increased significantly after training (from a median of 9.3 min (IQR: 9.3–14.5 min) to a median of 17.1 min (IQR: 15.4–19.4 min), p = 0.03). In conclusion, one day of training increases observer polyp sensitivity when using CAD for CTC at the expense of increased reporting time and reduction in specificity.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. H. Dachman, N. A. Obuchowski, J. W. Hoffmeister, J. L. Hinshaw, M. I. Frew, T. C. Winter, R. L. Van Uitert, S. Periaswamy, R. M. Summers, and B. J. Hillman
Effect of Computer-aided Detection for CT Colonography in a Multireader, Multicase Trial
Radiology, September 1, 2010; 256(3): 827 - 835.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
BJR review of the year - 2008.
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2009; 82(975): 180 - 182.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2008 by the British Institute of Radiology.