FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2025917651> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2025917651 endingPage "310" @default.
• W2025917651 startingPage "303" @default.
• W2025917651 abstract "Rationale and Objectives Bilateral mammographic density asymmetry is a promising indicator in assessing risk of having or developing breast cancer. This study aims to assess the performance improvement of a computer-aided detection (CAD) scheme in detecting masses by incorporating bilateral mammographic density asymmetrical information. Materials and Methods A testing dataset containing 2400 full-field digital mammograms (FFDM) acquired from 600 examination cases was established. Among them, 300 were positive cases with verified cancer associated with malignant masses and 300 were negative cases. Two computerized schemes were applied to process images of each case. The first single-image based CAD scheme detected suspicious mass regions and the second scheme computed average and difference of mammographic tissue density depicted between the left and right breast. A fusion method based on rotation of the CAD scoring projection reference axis was then applied to combine CAD-generated mass detection scores and either the computed average or difference (asymmetry) of bilateral mammographic density scores. The CAD performance levels with and without incorporating mammographic density information were evaluated and compared using a free-response receiver operating characteristic type data analysis method. Results CAD achieved a case-based mass detection sensitivity of 0.74 and a region-based sensitivity of 0.56 at a false-positive rate of 0.25 per image. By fusing the CAD and bilateral mammographic density asymmetry scores, the case-based and region-based sensitivity levels of the CAD scheme were increased to 0.84 and 0.69, respectively, at the same false-positive rate. Fusion with average mammographic density only slightly increased CAD sensitivity to 0.75 (case-based) and 0.57 (region-based). Conclusions This study indicated that 1) bilateral mammographic density asymmetry was a stronger indicator of the case depicting suspicious masses than the average density computed from two breasts and 2) fusion between the conventional CAD scores and bilateral mammographic density asymmetry information could substantially increase CAD performance in mass detection. Bilateral mammographic density asymmetry is a promising indicator in assessing risk of having or developing breast cancer. This study aims to assess the performance improvement of a computer-aided detection (CAD) scheme in detecting masses by incorporating bilateral mammographic density asymmetrical information. A testing dataset containing 2400 full-field digital mammograms (FFDM) acquired from 600 examination cases was established. Among them, 300 were positive cases with verified cancer associated with malignant masses and 300 were negative cases. Two computerized schemes were applied to process images of each case. The first single-image based CAD scheme detected suspicious mass regions and the second scheme computed average and difference of mammographic tissue density depicted between the left and right breast. A fusion method based on rotation of the CAD scoring projection reference axis was then applied to combine CAD-generated mass detection scores and either the computed average or difference (asymmetry) of bilateral mammographic density scores. The CAD performance levels with and without incorporating mammographic density information were evaluated and compared using a free-response receiver operating characteristic type data analysis method. CAD achieved a case-based mass detection sensitivity of 0.74 and a region-based sensitivity of 0.56 at a false-positive rate of 0.25 per image. By fusing the CAD and bilateral mammographic density asymmetry scores, the case-based and region-based sensitivity levels of the CAD scheme were increased to 0.84 and 0.69, respectively, at the same false-positive rate. Fusion with average mammographic density only slightly increased CAD sensitivity to 0.75 (case-based) and 0.57 (region-based). This study indicated that 1) bilateral mammographic density asymmetry was a stronger indicator of the case depicting suspicious masses than the average density computed from two breasts and 2) fusion between the conventional CAD scores and bilateral mammographic density asymmetry information could substantially increase CAD performance in mass detection." @default.
• W2025917651 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2025917651 creator A5006080654 @default.
• W2025917651 creator A5044125833 @default.
• W2025917651 creator A5045998635 @default.
• W2025917651 creator A5071037763 @default.
• W2025917651 creator A5076042378 @default.
• W2025917651 creator A5082299809 @default.
• W2025917651 date "2012-03-01" @default.
• W2025917651 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2025917651 title "Improving Performance of Computer-aided Detection of Masses by Incorporating Bilateral Mammographic Density Asymmetry: An Assessment" @default.
• W2025917651 cites W122828216 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1492054812 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1540266252 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1544628017 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1563391112 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1860760959 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1973658976 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1992364439 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W1994459113 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2013755458 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2023047363 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2023392037 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2026729706 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2030069582 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2042530367 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2052828511 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2065564800 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2069172368 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2069401973 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2072794239 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2091621237 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2095697356 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2113115183 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2119077877 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2129017343 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2130184842 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2139031005 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2152522287 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2152992560 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2158734599 @default.
• W2025917651 cites W2915512755 @default.
• W2025917651 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.026" @default.
• W2025917651 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3274572" @default.
• W2025917651 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22173323" @default.
• W2025917651 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2025917651 type Work @default.
• W2025917651 sameAs 2025917651 @default.
• W2025917651 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512012 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512015 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512016 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512017 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512018 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512019 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512021 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512022 @default.
• W2025917651 countsByYear W20259176512023 @default.
• W2025917651 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2025917651 hasAuthorship W2025917651A5006080654 @default.
• W2025917651 hasAuthorship W2025917651A5044125833 @default.
• W2025917651 hasAuthorship W2025917651A5045998635 @default.
• W2025917651 hasAuthorship W2025917651A5071037763 @default.
• W2025917651 hasAuthorship W2025917651A5076042378 @default.
• W2025917651 hasAuthorship W2025917651A5082299809 @default.
• W2025917651 hasBestOaLocation W20259176512 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C153180895 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C194789388 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C199639397 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C21200559 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C24326235 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C2779549770 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C2780472235 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C58471807 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C105795698 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C121608353 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C126322002 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C126838900 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C127413603 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C153180895 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C154945302 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C194789388 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C199639397 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C21200559 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C24326235 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C2779549770 @default.
• W2025917651 hasConceptScore W2025917651C2780472235 @default.

• next