You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither SPIE nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the SPIE website.
10 March 2009Inter- and intra-observer variability in radiologists' assessment of mass similarity on mammograms
The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of two recently-developed image retrieval methods for
mammographic masses, and to investigate the inter- and intra-observer variability in radiologists' assessment of mass
similarity. Method 1 retrieved masses that are similar to a query mass from a reference library based on radiologists'
margin and shape descriptions and the mass size. Method 2 used computer-extracted features. Two MQSA radiologists
participated in an observer study in which they rated the similarity between 100 query masses and the retrieved lesions
based on margins, shape, and size. For each query mass, three masses retrieved using Method 1 and three masses
retrieved using Method 2 were displayed in random order using a graphical user interface. A nine-point similarity rating
scale was used, with a rating of 1 indicating lowest similarity. Each radiologist repeated the readings twice, separated by
more than three months, so that intra-observer variability could be studied. Averaged over the two radiologists, two
readings, and all masses, the mean similarity ratings were 5.59 and 5.57 for Methods 1 and 2, respectively. The
difference between the two methods did not reach significance (p>0.20) for either radiologist. The intra-observer
variability was significantly lower than the inter-observer variability, which may indicate that each radiologist may have
their image similarity criteria, and the criteria may vary from radiologist to radiologist. The understanding of the trends
in radiologists' assessment of mass similarity may guide the development of decision support systems that make use of
mass similarity to aid radiologists in mammographic interpretation.
The alert did not successfully save. Please try again later.
Berkman Sahiner, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Heang-Ping Chan, Jing Cui, Chintana Paramagul, Alexis Nees, Mark Helvie, "Inter- and intra-observer variability in radiologists' assessment of mass similarity on mammograms," Proc. SPIE 7263, Medical Imaging 2009: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 726315 (10 March 2009); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.813425