Actual versus intended use of CAD systems in the clinical environment

Bin Zheng; Denise Chough; Perrin Ronald; Cathy Cohen; Christiane M. Hakim; Gordon Abrams; Marie A. Ganott M.D.; Luisa Wallace M.D.; Rattan Shah; Jules H. Sumkin; David Gur

doi:10.1117/12.649595

17 March 2006 Actual versus intended use of CAD systems in the clinical environment

Bin Zheng, Denise Chough, Perrin Ronald, Cathy Cohen, Christiane M. Hakim, Gordon Abrams, Marie A. Ganott M.D., Luisa Wallace M.D., Rattan Shah, Jules H. Sumkin, David Gur

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 6146, Medical Imaging 2006: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment; 614602 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.649595
Event: Medical Imaging, 2006, San Diego, California, United States

Abstract

Although computer-aided detection (CAD) systems were designed and approved for and are assumed to be used as a "second-reader", namely radiologists are expected to interpret mammograms and detect suspected abnormalities (i.e., micro-calcification clusters and masses) independently before viewing CAD results, it is not clear whether radiologists in a busy clinical environment follow the intended use. In this study, we observed ten experienced radiologists during the clinical reading of 635 mammography examinations and recorded their workflow pattern in terms of the use of CAD. The observations suggest that for detecting micro-calcification clusters only a few radiologists actually used a magnifying glass to carefully and systematically scan all images. Areas in which no CAD cues were identified for micro-calcifications were largely discarded. The majority of radiologists used CAD for identification micro-calcifications clusters almost as a "pre-screening" tool. In less than 15% of cases with CAD cues for microcalcifications cluster the radiologists actually scanned the complete set of images for possible additional clusters. The majority of more careful searches were performed by only three radiologists who voluntarily admitted they knew they were an exception in regards to their reading style and admitted they personally believed they were also "slower". CAD marks of possible masses were often discarded by the majority of the radiologists in particular when cues appeared only on one view. We found that there was a large difference between the use of CAD for detection of micro-calcifications clusters and masses. In addition, radiologists frequently use CAD in a manner that is substantially different than originally intended.

Citation Download Citation

Bin Zheng, Denise Chough, Perrin Ronald, Cathy Cohen, Christiane M. Hakim, Gordon Abrams, Marie A. Ganott M.D., Luisa Wallace M.D., Rattan Shah, Jules H. Sumkin, and David Gur "Actual versus intended use of CAD systems in the clinical environment", Proc. SPIE 6146, Medical Imaging 2006: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 614602 (17 March 2006); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.649595

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available