↓ Skip to main content

Development of a Computer-Aided Differential Diagnosis System to Distinguish Between Usual Interstitial Pneumonia and Non-specific Interstitial Pneumonia Using Texture- and Shape-Based Hierarchical…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Development of a Computer-Aided Differential Diagnosis System to Distinguish Between Usual Interstitial Pneumonia and Non-specific Interstitial Pneumonia Using Texture- and Shape-Based Hierarchical Classifiers on HRCT Images
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-0018-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

SangHoon Jun, BeomHee Park, Joon Beom Seo, SangMin Lee, Namkug Kim

Abstract

A computer-aided differential diagnosis (CADD) system that distinguishes between usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) using high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) images was developed, and its results compared against the decision of a radiologist. Six local interstitial lung disease patterns in the images were determined, and 900 typical regions of interest were marked by an experienced radiologist. A support vector machine classifier was used to train and label the regions of interest of the lung parenchyma based on the texture and shape characteristics. Based on the regional classifications of the entire lung using HRCT, the distributions and extents of the six regional patterns were characterized through their CADD features. The disease division index of every area fraction combination and the asymmetric index between the left and right lungs were also evaluated. A second SVM classifier was employed to classify the UIP and NSIP, and features were selected through sequential-forward floating feature selection. For the evaluation, 54 HRCT images of UIP (n = 26) and NSIP (n = 28) patients clinically diagnosed by a pulmonologist were included and evaluated. The classification accuracy was measured based on a fivefold cross-validation with 20 repetitions using random shuffling. For comparison, thoracic radiologists assessed each case using HRCT images without clinical information or diagnosis. The accuracies of the radiologists' decisions were 75 and 87%. The accuracies of the CADD system using different features ranged from 70 to 81%. Finally, the accuracy of the proposed CADD system after sequential-forward feature selection was 91%.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Other 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,915,942
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#813
of 1,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,364
of 315,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,061 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.