Mapping LIDC, RadLex™, and Lung Nodule Image Features

AbstractIdeally, an image should be reported and interpreted in the same way (e.g., the same perceived likelihood of malignancy) or similarly by any two radiologists; however, as much research has demonstrated, this is not often the case. Various efforts have made an attempt at tackling the problem of reducing the variability in radiologists’ interpretations of images. The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) has provided a database of lung nodule images and associated radiologist ratings in an effort to provide images to aid in the analysis of computer-aided tools. Likewise, the Radiological Society of North America has developed a radiological lexicon called RadLex. As such, the goal of this paper is to investigate the feasibility of associating LIDC characteristics and terminology with RadLex terminology. If matches between LIDC characteristics and RadLex terms are found, probabilistic models based on image features may be used as decision-based rules to predict if an image or lung nodule could be characterized or classified as an associated RadLex term. The results of this study were matches for 25 (74%) out of 34 LIDC terms in RadLex. This suggests that LIDC characteristics and associated rating terminology may be better conceptualized or reduced to produce even more matches with RadLex. Ultimately, the goal is to identify and establish a more standardized rating system and terminology to reduce the subjective variability between radiologist annotations. A standardized rating system can then be utilized by future researchers to develop automatic annotation models and tools for computer-aided decision systems.

[1]  Geoffrey McLennan,et al.  The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC): pulmonary nodule measurements, the variation, and the difference between different size metrics , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[3]  J. V. van Engelshoven,et al.  Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: impact of previous films, clinical information, double reading, and dual reading. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  Paavo Ritala,et al.  Coopetitive networks in the ICT sector , 2008 .

[5]  C. Langlotz RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[6]  C. McKay,et al.  Objectivity and accuracy of mammogram interpretation using the BI-RADS final assessment categories in 40- to 49-year-old women , 2000, The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.

[7]  Sameer Antani,et al.  Exploring access to scientific literature using content-based image retrieval , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[8]  Geoffrey McLennan,et al.  The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC): an evaluation of radiologist variability in the identification of lung nodules on CT scans. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[9]  Bram van Ginneken,et al.  Computer analysis of computed tomography scans of the lung: a survey , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  Thomas Schulz,et al.  Indexing Thoracic CT Reports Using a Preliminary Version of a Standardized Radiological Lexicon (RadLex) , 2008, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[11]  Daniel L. Rubin,et al.  The caBIG™ Annotation and Image Markup Project , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[12]  Michael F. McNitt-Gray,et al.  Forming a reference standard from LIDC data: impact of reader agreement on reported CAD performance , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  M. Eberl,et al.  BI-RADS classification for management of abnormal mammograms. , 2006, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM.

[14]  Jacob D. Furst,et al.  Modelling semantics from image data: opportunities from LIDC , 2010 .

[15]  Jacob D. Furst,et al.  Predictive Data Mining for Lung Nodule Interpretation , 2007 .

[16]  S S Sagel,et al.  CT of the pulmonary nodule: a cooperative study. , 1986, Radiology.

[17]  Susan A. Caldwell,et al.  The completeness of existing lexicons for representing radiology report information. , 2002, Journal of digital imaging.

[18]  Geoffrey McLennan,et al.  Assessment of radiologist performance in the detection of lung nodules: dependence on the definition of "truth". , 2009, Academic radiology.

[19]  Richard C. Pais,et al.  Evaluation of Lung MDCT Nodule Annotation Across Radiologists and Methods 1 , 2006 .

[20]  D. Vanel The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[21]  Curtis P Langlotz,et al.  A framework for improving radiology reporting. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[22]  E. Hoffman,et al.  Lung image database consortium: developing a resource for the medical imaging research community. , 2004, Radiology.

[23]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  How to minimize perceptual error and maximize expertise in medical imaging , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[24]  Zaid J. Towfic,et al.  The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) data collection process for nodule detection and annotation , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.