Computer Detection Effective In Spotting Cancer 89
Anti-Globalism notes a large study out of the UK indicating that computer-aided detection can be as effective at spotting breast cancer as two experts reading the x-rays. Mammograms in Britain are routinely checked by two radiologists or technicians, which is thought to be better than a single review (in the US only a single radiologist reads each mammogram). In a randomized study of 31,000 women, researchers found that a single expert aided by a computer does as well as two pairs of eyes. CAD spotted nearly the same number of cancers, 198 out of 227, compared to 199 for the two readers. "In places like the United States, 'Where single reading is standard practice, computer-aided detection has the potential to improve cancer-detection rates to the level achieved by double reading,' the researchers said."
Amazing (Score:0, Insightful)
It's amazing what the technology can do these days. The thought that software can help in the detection of this sort of thing is a testament to the fact that those who build these systems are standing on the shoulders of giants due to the immense amounts of knowledge and experience that have gone into making all parts of this system (besides the part that detects cancer) function. This is at least hundreds of years of engineering in the design and production of the electronics over many iterations, plus the centuries of development of mathematics that had to be developed before electronics were discovered. Now let's get to the software that detects cancer. The people who wrote this software had to be experts both in software and in the relevant medical fields. I think all of this is amazing and we need to be thankful that we live in a time when these sorts of things are possible.
Totally OT but worthwhile IMO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntus7nevNM0 [youtube.com] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8 [youtube.com] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k10c11uSVzA [youtube.com]
'Nuf said
Re:WTF? just WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)
As much as I afree with you, keep in mind that that 199th woman would be really really glad that it was two radiologists and not a radiologist and a computer... her life could well have depended on it.
This is good unless... (Score:3, Insightful)
...you're #199. If the computer provides that much advantage when combined with a single person, it stands to reason that it would also provide a huge advantage when two people read the charts. Unfortunately, knowing our medical system in the U.S., they'll probably just use this as an excuse to pay only one doctor to read the chart....
Re:WTF? just WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you have to *PROVE* with clinical certainty (ie. research studies) that the computer system is as good as an expert under all conditions. A mammogram is a two dimensional monochrome picture of a three-dimensional object. As you are attempting to detect a life-threatening defect using a piece of software, false alarms can be as devastating to the patient as missed detections, and thus have the same lawsuit risks.
Also, this requires the entire hospital to have a digital patient record management system, in order to handle digital X-ray images. Many hospitals and dentists are still using photographic plates and paper records. With the digital system, everything from doctors notes to X-rays, CAT and MRI scans are automatically placed into the patients record when they are generated. The resulting data is then accessible to any consultant or doctor involved with the patient. The new system has the advantage that there is no need to wait for X-ray plates to be developed.
Re:WTF? just WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Be careful: A slight improvement in the classifier (or acceptance of another false positive or two) and you may have to make that argument in the other direction. The difference is accuracy is not statistically significant for a binary classification problem of that size.
What this article demonstrates is that current state-of-the-art CAD is nearly as good as a second reader. The performance of the radiologist is pretty much fixed; the algorithm's performance is not.
Re:WTF? just WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
that's a statistically insignificant difference in accuracy. i think the conclusion to be drawn from this is that computer-aided detection is much more effective than an unaided human expert. this has significant implications when doing cost-benefit analysis.
the cost of an extra computer is likely a lot less than another technician or radiologist. so this data will help medical institutions make better use of funds while improving quality of patient care. it doesn't mean they have to lay off their radiologists/technicians and replace them with computers, but perhaps they could add a computer to their radiology lab and allocate new personnel for other tasks that demand human judgment.