Predicting radiologists' true and false positive decisions in reading mammograms by using gaze parameters and image-based features

Radiologists’ gaze-related parameters combined with image-based features were utilized to classify suspicious mammographic areas ultimately scored as True Positives (TP) and False Positives (FP). Eight breast radiologists read 120 two-view digital mammograms of which 59 had biopsy proven cancer. Eye tracking data was collected and nearby fixations were clustered together. Suspicious areas on mammograms were independently identified based on thresholding an intensity saliency map followed by automatic segmentation and pruning steps. For each radiologist reported area, radiologist’s fixation clusters in the area, as well as neighboring suspicious areas within 2.5° of the center of fixation, were found. A 45-dimensional feature vector containing gaze parameters of the corresponding cluster along with image-based characteristics was constructed. Gaze parameters included total number of fixations in the cluster, dwell time, time to hit the cluster for the first time, maximum number of consecutive fixations, and saccade magnitude of the first fixation in the cluster. Image-based features consisted of intensity, shape, and texture descriptors extracted from the region around the suspicious area, its surrounding tissue, and the entire breast. For each radiologist, a userspecific Support Vector Machine (SVM) model was built to classify the reported areas as TPs or FPs. Leave-one-out cross validation was utilized to avoid over-fitting. A feature selection step was embedded in the SVM training procedure by allowing radial basis function kernels to have 45 scaling factors. The proposed method was compared with the radiologists’ performance using the jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC). The JAFROC figure of merit increased significantly for six radiologists.

[1]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[2]  Claudia Mello-Thoms,et al.  Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  Gary R Cutter,et al.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. , 2005, Radiology.

[4]  Nicolai Petkov,et al.  Comparison of texture features based on Gabor filters , 2002, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[5]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[6]  H. Lynch,et al.  Psychologic Aspects of Cancer Genetic Testing: A Research Update for Clinicians , 1997 .

[7]  S. Woolf,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  Sayan Mukherjee,et al.  Choosing Multiple Parameters for Support Vector Machines , 2002, Machine Learning.

[9]  Huiman X Barnhart,et al.  Individualized computer-aided education in mammography based on user modeling: concept and preliminary experiments. , 2010, Medical physics.

[10]  Zhili Chen zzc,et al.  Segmentation of the Breast Region with Pectoral Muscle Removal in Mammograms , 2010 .

[11]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Analysis of asymmetry in mammograms via directional filtering with Gabor wavelets , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  C. Mello-Thoms,et al.  The perception of breast cancers-a spatial frequency analysis of what differentiates missed from reported cancers , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[13]  Georgia D Tourassi,et al.  Predicting diagnostic error in radiology via eye-tracking and image analytics: preliminary investigation in mammography. , 2013, Medical physics.

[14]  Hsuan-Tien Lin,et al.  A note on Platt’s probabilistic outputs for support vector machines , 2007, Machine Learning.

[15]  Christof Koch,et al.  A Model of Saliency-Based Visual Attention for Rapid Scene Analysis , 2009 .

[16]  Solveig Hofvind,et al.  The cumulative risk of a false‐positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program , 2004, Cancer.

[17]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Gabor filters and phase portraits for the detection of architectural distortion in mammograms , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[18]  D. Kopans,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography: A Cohort Study , 2012 .