We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Automatic detection and quantification of ground-glass opacities on high-resolution CT using multiple neural networks: comparison with a density mask.
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2000 November
OBJECTIVE: We compared multiple neural networks with a density mask for the automatic detection and quantification of ground-glass opacities on high-resolution CT under clinical conditions.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients (54 men and 30 women; age range, 18-82 years; mean age, 49 years) with a total of 99 consecutive high-resolution CT scans were enrolled in the study. The neural network was designed to detect ground-glass opacities with high sensitivity and to omit air-tissue interfaces to increase specificity. The results of the neural network were compared with those of a density mask (thresholds, -750/-300 H), with a radiologist serving as the gold standard.
RESULTS: The neural network classified 6% of the total lung area as ground-glass opacities. The density mask failed to detect 1.3%, and this percentage represented the increase in sensitivity that was achieved by the neural network. The density mask identified another 17.3% of the total lung area to be ground-glass opacities that were not detected by the neural network. This area represented the increase in specificity achieved by the neural network. Related to the extent of the ground-glass opacities as classified by the radiologist, the neural network (density mask) reached a sensitivity of 99% (89%), specificity of 83% (55%), positive predictive value of 78% (18%), negative predictive value of 99% (98%), and accuracy of 89% (58%).
CONCLUSION: Automatic segmentation and quantification of ground-glass opacities on high-resolution CT by a neural network are sufficiently accurate to be implemented for the preinterpretation of images in a clinical environment; it is superior to a double-threshold density mask.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients (54 men and 30 women; age range, 18-82 years; mean age, 49 years) with a total of 99 consecutive high-resolution CT scans were enrolled in the study. The neural network was designed to detect ground-glass opacities with high sensitivity and to omit air-tissue interfaces to increase specificity. The results of the neural network were compared with those of a density mask (thresholds, -750/-300 H), with a radiologist serving as the gold standard.
RESULTS: The neural network classified 6% of the total lung area as ground-glass opacities. The density mask failed to detect 1.3%, and this percentage represented the increase in sensitivity that was achieved by the neural network. The density mask identified another 17.3% of the total lung area to be ground-glass opacities that were not detected by the neural network. This area represented the increase in specificity achieved by the neural network. Related to the extent of the ground-glass opacities as classified by the radiologist, the neural network (density mask) reached a sensitivity of 99% (89%), specificity of 83% (55%), positive predictive value of 78% (18%), negative predictive value of 99% (98%), and accuracy of 89% (58%).
CONCLUSION: Automatic segmentation and quantification of ground-glass opacities on high-resolution CT by a neural network are sufficiently accurate to be implemented for the preinterpretation of images in a clinical environment; it is superior to a double-threshold density mask.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app