Imaging Technology and Practice Assessment Studies: Importance of the Baseline or Reference Performance Level

Abstract

HomeRadiologyVol. 247, No. 1 PreviousNext EditorialsImaging Technology and Practice Assessment Studies: Importance of the Baseline or Reference Performance LevelDavid GurDavid GurAuthor Affiliations1From the Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Imaging Research, Rm 223 FARP Building, 3362 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3180. Received May 5, 2007; revision requested June 20; revision received June 28; final version accepted August 23. Supported in part by grant EB003503 (to the University of Pittsburgh) from the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health. Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).David GurPublished Online:Apr 1 2008https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2471070822MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In References1 Warren BurhenneLJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology2000;215(2):554–562. [Published correction appears in Radiology 2000;216(1):306.] Link, Google Scholar2 PisanoED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med2005;353(17):1773–1783. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 LehmanCD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med2007;356(13):1295–1303. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Center for Devices and Radiological Health. CDRH consumer information: new device approval—ImageChecker CT CAD Software System (model LN-1000)-P030012. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mda/docs/p030012.html. Published July 8, 2004. Updated August 19, 2004. Accessed June 25, 2007. Google Scholar5 AlpertS. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Approval letter for M1000 ImageChecker for mammography. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/p970058.pdf.Published June 26, 1998. Accessed June 25,2007. Google Scholar6 GurD, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst2004;96(3):185–190. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 WagnerRF, Metz CE, Campbell G. Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. Acad Radiol2007;14(6):723–748. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 BirdwellRL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology2005;236(2):451–457. Link, Google Scholar9 FreerTW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology2001;220(3):781–786. Link, Google Scholar10 DeanJC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol2006;187(1):20–28. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11 FentonJJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med2007;356(14):1399–1409. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12 KriegeM, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med2004;351(5):427–437. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished in print: 2008 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAcademic Radiology, Vol. 24, No. 11Academic Radiology, Vol. 21, No. 3Computer-aided Diagnosis: How to Move from the Laboratory to the ClinicBram van Ginneken, , Cornelia M. Schaefer-Prokop, , and Mathias Prokop, 1 December 2011 | Radiology, Vol. 261, No. 3European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 72, No. 2Academic Radiology, Vol. 15, No. 11Recommended Articles Machine Learning for Workflow Applications in Screening Mammography: Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisRadiology2021Volume: 302Issue: 1pp. 88-104Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening PopulationRadiology2017Volume: 283Issue: 1pp. 70-76Addressing Racial Inequities in Access to State-of-the-Art Breast ImagingRadiology2022Volume: 0Issue: 0Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007–2016Radiology2021Volume: 300Issue: 2pp. 290-300Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community PracticeRadiology2017Volume: 285Issue: 1pp. 44-52See More RSNA Education Exhibits Breast Cancer in Younger Women: Screening and Diagnostic Imaging ExaminationsDigital Posters2018Non-Contrast-Enhanced Breast MR Screening for Women with Dense BreastsDigital Posters2019Let’s Talk about Next-Generation Breast Cancer Screening Programs: How Should We Do? What Should We Use?Digital Posters2020 RSNA Case Collection Locally Advanced Breast CancerRSNA Case Collection2021Poland SyndromeRSNA Case Collection2020Invasive Lobular CarcinomaRSNA Case Collection2021 Vol. 247, No. 1 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download