IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0185032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Malignancy risk estimation of pulmonary nodules in screening CTs: Comparison between a computer model and human observers

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah J van Riel
  • Francesco Ciompi
  • Mathilde M Winkler Wille
  • Asger Dirksen
  • Stephen Lam
  • Ernst Th Scholten
  • Santiago E Rossi
  • Nicola Sverzellati
  • Matiullah Naqibullah
  • Rianne Wittenberg
  • Marieke C Hovinga-de Boer
  • Miranda Snoeren
  • Liesbeth Peters-Bax
  • Onno Mets
  • Monique Brink
  • Mathias Prokop
  • Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
  • Bram van Ginneken

Abstract

Purpose: To compare human observers to a mathematically derived computer model for differentiation between malignant and benign pulmonary nodules detected on baseline screening computed tomography (CT) scans. Methods: A case-cohort study design was chosen. The study group consisted of 300 chest CT scans from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). It included all scans with proven malignancies (n = 62) and two subsets of randomly selected baseline scans with benign nodules of all sizes (n = 120) and matched in size to the cancers, respectively (n = 118). Eleven observers and the computer model (PanCan) assigned a malignancy probability score to each nodule. Performances were expressed by area under the ROC curve (AUC). Performance differences were tested using the Dorfman, Berbaum and Metz method. Seven observers assessed morphological nodule characteristics using a predefined list. Differences in morphological features between malignant and size-matched benign nodules were analyzed using chi-square analysis with Bonferroni correction. A significant difference was defined at p

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah J van Riel & Francesco Ciompi & Mathilde M Winkler Wille & Asger Dirksen & Stephen Lam & Ernst Th Scholten & Santiago E Rossi & Nicola Sverzellati & Matiullah Naqibullah & Rianne Wittenberg & Ma, 2017. "Malignancy risk estimation of pulmonary nodules in screening CTs: Comparison between a computer model and human observers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185032
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185032
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185032&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0185032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fei Xiao & Deruo Liu & Yongqing Guo & Bin Shi & Zhiyi Song & Yanchu Tian & Chaoyang Liang, 2013. "Novel and Convenient Method to Evaluate the Character of Solitary Pulmonary Nodule-Comparison of Three Mathematical Prediction Models and Further Stratification of Risk Factors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-6, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.