| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Computer Applications |
1 Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Maria Annunziata Hospital (R.B., C.D., G.G.)
2 Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (R.B., E.V.)
3 Radiology (E.V.), Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of artificial neural networks (ANNs) with that of multiple logistic regression (MLR) models for predicting ovarian malignancy in patients with adnexal masses by using transvaginal B-mode and color Doppler flow ultrasonography (US).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 226 adnexal masses were examined before surgery: Fifty-one were malignant and 175 were benign. The data were divided into training and testing subsets by using a "leave n out method." The training subsets were used to compute the optimum MLR equations and to train the ANNs. The cross-validation subsets were used to estimate the performance of each of the two models in predicting ovarian malignancy.
RESULTS: At testing, three-layer back-propagation networks, based on the same input variables selected by using MLR (ie, women's ages, papillary projections, random echogenicity, peak systolic velocity, and resistance index), had a significantly higher sensitivity than did MLR (96% vs 84%; McNemar test, P = .04). The Brier scores for ANNs were significantly lower than those calculated for MLR (Student t test for paired samples, P = .004).
CONCLUSION: ANNs might have potential for categorizing adnexal masses as either malignant or benign on the basis of multiple variables related to demographic and US features.
Index terms: Computers, diagnostic aid • Computers, neural network • Ovary, neoplasms, 852.30 • Ovary, US, 852.1298, 852.12983 • Ultrasound (US), Doppler studies, 852.12983
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Yoruk, O. Dundar, B. Yildizhan, L. Tutuncu, and T. Pekin Comparison of the Risk of Malignancy Index and Self-Constructed Logistic Regression Models in Preoperative Evaluation of Adnexal Masses J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2008; 27(10): 1469 - 1477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Van Holsbeke, B. Van Calster, L. Valentin, A. C. Testa, E. Ferrazzi, I. Dimou, C. Lu, P. Moerman, S. Van Huffel, I. Vergote, et al. External Validation of Mathematical Models to Distinguish Between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Tumors: A Multicenter Study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group Clin. Cancer Res., August 1, 2007; 13(15): 4440 - 4447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Kim, J. M. Lee, J. H. Kim, K. G. Kim, J. K. Han, K. H. Lee, S. H. Park, N.-J. Yi, K.-S. Suh, S. K. An, et al. Appropriateness of a Donor Liver with Respect to Macrosteatosis: Application of Artificial Neural Networks to US Images--Initial Experience Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 793 - 803. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Kan, Y. Shimada, F. Sato, T. Ito, K. Kondo, G. Watanabe, M. Maeda, S. Yamasaki, S. J. Meltzer, and M. Imamura Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis with Use of Artificial Neural Networks Based on Gene Expression Profiles in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Ann. Surg. Oncol., December 1, 2004; 11(12): 1070 - 1078. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Xu, F. M. Selaru, J. Yin, T. T. Zou, V. Shustova, Y. Mori, F. Sato, T. C. Liu, A. Olaru, S. Wang, et al. Artificial Neural Networks and Gene Filtering Distinguish Between Global Gene Expression Profiles of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer Cancer Res., June 1, 2002; 62(12): 3493 - 3497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kinkel, H. Hricak, Y. Lu, K. Tsuda, and R. A. Filly US Characterization of Ovarian Masses: A Meta-Analysis Radiology, December 1, 2000; 217(3): 803 - 811. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R.-F. Chang, W.-J. Kuo, D.-R. Chen, Y.-L. Huang, J.-H. Lee, and Y.-H. Chou Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Surgical Office-Based Breast Ultrasound Arch Surg, June 1, 2000; 135(6): 696 - 699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
