Anniversary Paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: The role of Medical Physics and AAPM
Open accessAbstract
The roles of physicists in medical imaging have expanded over the years, from the study of imaging systems (sources and detectors) and dose to the assessment of image quality and perception, the development of image processing techniques, and the development of image analysis methods to assist in detection and diagnosis. The latter is a natural extension of medical physicists' goals in developing imaging techniques to help physicians acquire diagnostic information and improve clinical decisions. Studies indicate that radiologists do not detect all abnormalities on images that are visible on retrospective review, and they do not always correctly characterize abnormalities that are found. Since the 1950s, the potential use of computers had been considered for analysis of radiographic abnormalities. In the mid-1980s, however, medical physicists and radiologists began major research efforts for computer-aided detection or computer-aided diagnosis (CAD), that is, using the computer output as an aid to radiologists-as opposed to a completely automatic computer interpretation-focusing initially on methods for the detection of lesions on chest radiographs and mammograms. Since then, extensive investigations of computerized image analysis for detection or diagnosis of abnormalities in a variety of 2D and 3D medical images have been conducted. The growth of CAD over the past 20 years has been tremendous-from the early days of time-consuming film digitization and CPU-intensive computations on a limited number of cases to its current status in which developed CAD approaches are evaluated rigorously on large clinically relevant databases. CAD research by medical physicists includes many aspects-collecting relevant normal and pathological cases; developing computer algorithms appropriate for the medical interpretation task including those for segmentation, feature extraction, and classifier design; developing methodology for assessing CAD performance; validating the algorithms using appropriate cases to measure performance and robustness; conducting observer studies with which to evaluate radiologists in the diagnostic task without and with the use of the computer aid; and ultimately assessing performance with a clinical trial. Medical physicists also have an important role in quantitative imaging, by validating the quantitative integrity of scanners and developing imaging techniques, and image analysis tools that extract quantitative data in a more accurate and automated fashion. As imaging systems become more complex and the need for better quantitative information from images grows, the future includes the combined research efforts from physicists working in CAD with those working on quantitative imaging systems to readily yield information on morphology, function, molecular structure, and more-from animal imaging research to clinical patient care. A historical review of CAD and a discussion of challenges for the future are presented here, along with the extension to quantitative image analysis.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Traditional machine learning approaches for breast tumor or mass lesion CADx often utilize handcrafted and heuristic lesion-extracted features.
“Traditional machine learning approaches for breast tumor or mass lesion CADx often utilize handcrafted and heuristic lesion-extracted features [85].”
From Deep Learning in Medical Ultrasound Analysis: A Review (2019) · cites this paper as [85]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 392 · Cited by 311
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- R. Kruger, W. Thompson, and A. Turner, "Computer diagnosis of pneu- moconiosis," IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. SMC-4, 40-50 ͑1974͒.
- C. Kimme, B. J. O'Laughlin, and J. Sklansky, Automatic Detection of Suspicious Abnormalities in Breast Radiographs ͑Academic Press, New York, 1975͒, pp. 427-447.
- M. L. Giger, "Computer-aided diagnosis," in Syllabus: A Categorical Course in Physics. Technical Aspects of Breast Imaging, A. G. Haus and M. J. Yaffe, eds. ͑RSNA Publications, Oak Brook, IL, 1993͒, pp. 272- 298.
- K. Doi, H. MacMahon, M. Giger, and K. Hoffmann, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Medical Imaging ͑Elsevier, New York, 1999͒.
- H. P. Chan, B. Sahiner, and L. M. Hadjiiski, "Computer-aided diagnosis in screening mammography," in Advances in Breast Imaging: Physics, Technology, and Clinical Applications-Categorical Course in Diagnos- tic Radiology Physics, A. Karellas and M. L. Giger, eds. ͑RSNA, Oak Brook, IL, 2004͒, pp. 191-204.
- J. C. Dainty and R. Shaw, Image Science ͑Academic Press, New York, 1974͒.
- R. Nishikawa, "Current status and future directions of computer-aided diagnosis in mammography," Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 31, 224- 235 ͑2007͒. · DOI
- W. Zouras, M. Giger, P. Lu, D. Wolverton, C. Vyborny, and K. Doi, "Investigation of temporal subtraction scheme for computerized detection of breast masses." Proceedings of Digital Mammography '96 Annual Meeting ͑1996͒. 127
- P. L. Carson, G. L. LeCarpentier, M. A. Roubidoux, R. Q. Erkamp, J. B. Fowlkes, and M. M. Goodsitt, "Physics and technology of breast US imaging including automated three-dimensional US," in Advances in Breast Imaging: Physics, Technology, and Clinical Applications- Categorical Course in Diagnostic Radiology Physics, A. Karellas and M. L. Giger, eds. ͑RSNA, Oak Brook, IL, 2004͒, pp. 223-232.
- H. P. Chan, J. Wei, B. Sahiner, E. A. Rafferty, T. Wu, M. A. Roubidoux, R. H. Moore, D. B. Kopans, L. M. Hadjiiski, and M. A. Helvie, "Com- puterized detection of masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms-A preliminary study," Proceedings of IWDM, 2004, pp. 199-202. 141
- L. M. Yarusso, R. M. Nishikawa, J. Papaioannou, R. Nagel, P. Jokich, and L. A. Venta, "Application of computer-aided diagnosis to full-field digital mammography," in Digital Mammography 2000, M. J. Yaffe, ed. ͑Medi- cal Physics Publishing, Madison, WI, 2000͒, pp. 421-426.
- J. Sklansky, E. Tao, C. Ornes, and A. Disher, A Visualized Mammo- graphic Database in Computer-Aided Diagnosis ͑Elsevier, New York, 1999͒. 267
- M. L. Giger, Z. Huo, L. Lan, and C. Vyborny, "Intelligent search work- station for computer-aided diagnosis," Proc. CARS, pp. 822-827 ͑2000͒. 270
- H. P. Chan, S. C. B. Lo, B. Sahiner, K. L. Lam, and M. A. Helvie, "Computer-aided detection of mammographic microcalcifications: Pattern recognition with an artificial neural network," Med. Phys. 22, 1555-1567 ͑1995͒. 335 · DOI
- M. L. Giger, "Current issues in CAD for mammography," in Digital Mammography '96, K. Doi, M. L. Giger, R. M. Nishikawa, and R. A. Schmidt, eds. ͑Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996͒, pp. 53-59. 336
- Authors
- Giger, M. L., Chan, H., & Boone, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Giger, Maryellen L.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-11-20
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 5799-5820
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- PMC
- PMC2673617
- OpenAlex
- W2157117929
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 392
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 2.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Medical Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- NIH (R01 EB002138)
- National Institutes of Health (R01 EB002138)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- computer-aided detection, computer-aided diagnosis, quantitative image analysis, AAPM, mammography, image segmentation, feature extraction, classifier design, observer study, quantitative imaging, radiology
- MeSH terms
- Breast Neoplasms, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Diagnostic Imaging, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Mammography, Radiometry, ROC Curve, Societies, Medical, Time Factors, Imaging, Three-Dimensional
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review