IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automatic inference model construction for computer-aided diagnosis of lung nodule: Explanation adequacy, inference accuracy, and experts’ knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Masami Kawagishi
  • Takeshi Kubo
  • Ryo Sakamoto
  • Masahiro Yakami
  • Koji Fujimoto
  • Gakuto Aoyama
  • Yutaka Emoto
  • Hiroyuki Sekiguchi
  • Koji Sakai
  • Yoshio Iizuka
  • Mizuho Nishio
  • Hiroyuki Yamamoto
  • Kaori Togashi

Abstract

We aimed to describe the development of an inference model for computer-aided diagnosis of lung nodules that could provide valid reasoning for any inferences, thereby improving the interpretability and performance of the system. An automatic construction method was used that considered explanation adequacy and inference accuracy. In addition, we evaluated the usefulness of prior experts’ (radiologists’) knowledge while constructing the models. In total, 179 patients with lung nodules were included and divided into 79 and 100 cases for training and test data, respectively. F-measure and accuracy were used to assess explanation adequacy and inference accuracy, respectively. For F-measure, reasons were defined as proper subsets of Evidence that had a strong influence on the inference result. The inference models were automatically constructed using the Bayesian network and Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, selecting only those models that met the predefined criteria. During model constructions, we examined the effect of including radiologist’s knowledge in the initial Bayesian network models. Performance of the best models in terms of F-measure, accuracy, and evaluation metric were as follows: 0.411, 72.0%, and 0.566, respectively, with prior knowledge, and 0.274, 65.0%, and 0.462, respectively, without prior knowledge. The best models with prior knowledge were then subjectively and independently evaluated by two radiologists using a 5-point scale, with 5, 3, and 1 representing beneficial, appropriate, and detrimental, respectively. The average scores by the two radiologists were 3.97 and 3.76 for the test data, indicating that the proposed computer-aided diagnosis system was acceptable to them. In conclusion, the proposed method incorporating radiologists’ knowledge could help in eliminating radiologists’ distrust of computer-aided diagnosis and improving its performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Masami Kawagishi & Takeshi Kubo & Ryo Sakamoto & Masahiro Yakami & Koji Fujimoto & Gakuto Aoyama & Yutaka Emoto & Hiroyuki Sekiguchi & Koji Sakai & Yoshio Iizuka & Mizuho Nishio & Hiroyuki Yamamoto & , 2018. "Automatic inference model construction for computer-aided diagnosis of lung nodule: Explanation adequacy, inference accuracy, and experts’ knowledge," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207661
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207661
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207661&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207661?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.