Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Language
Publication year range
1.
São Paulo med. j ; São Paulo med. j;141(2): 89-97, Mar.-Apr. 2023. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1424664

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Computer-aided diagnosis in low-dose (≤ 3 mSv) computed tomography (CT) is a potential screening tool for lung nodules, with quality interpretation and less inter-observer variability among readers. Therefore, we aimed to determine the screening potential of CT using a radiation dose that does not exceed 2 mSv. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the diagnostic parameters of low-dose (< 2 mSv) CT interpretation results using a computer-aided diagnosis system for lung cancer screening with those of a conventional reading system used by radiologists. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a comparative study of chest CT images for lung cancer screening at three private institutions. METHODS: A database of low-dose (< 2 mSv) chest CT images of patients at risk of lung cancer was viewed with the conventional reading system (301 patients and 226 nodules) or computer-aided diagnosis system without any subsequent radiologist review (944 patients and 1,048 nodules). RESULTS: The numbers of detected and solid nodules per patient (both P < 0.0001) were higher using the computer-aided diagnosis system than those using the conventional reading system. The nodule size was reported as the maximum size in any plane in the computer-aided diagnosis system. Higher numbers of patients (102 [11%] versus 20 [7%], P = 0.0345) and nodules (154 [15%] versus 17 [8%], P = 0.0035) were diagnosed with cancer using the computer-aided diagnosis system. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-aided diagnosis system facilitates the diagnosis of cancerous nodules, especially solid nodules, in low-dose (< 2 mSv) CT among patients at risk for lung cancer.

2.
Biomed Eng Online ; 17(1): 12, 2018 Jan 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29378578

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this paper is to present a critical review on the main systems that use artificial intelligence to identify groups at risk for osteoporosis or fractures. The systems considered for this study were those that fulfilled the following requirements: range of coverage in diagnosis, low cost and capability to identify more significant somatic factors. METHODS: A bibliographic research was done in the databases, PubMed, IEEExplorer Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (LILACS), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct searching the terms "Neural Network", "Osteoporosis Machine Learning" and "Osteoporosis Neural Network". Studies with titles not directly related to the research topic and older data that reported repeated strategies were excluded. The search was carried out with the descriptors in German, Spanish, French, Italian, Mandarin, Portuguese and English; but only studies written in English were found to meet the established criteria. Articles covering the period 2000-2017 were selected; however, articles prior to this period with great relevance were included in this study. DISCUSSION: Based on the collected research, it was identified that there are several methods in the use of artificial intelligence to help the screening of risk groups of osteoporosis or fractures. However, such systems were limited to a specific ethnic group, gender or age. For future research, new challenges are presented. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to develop research with the unification of different databases and grouping of the various attributes and clinical factors, in order to reach a greater comprehensiveness in the identification of risk groups of osteoporosis. For this purpose, the use of any predictive tool should be performed in different populations with greater participation of male patients and inclusion of a larger age range for the ones involved. The biggest challenge is to deal with all the data complexity generated by this unification, developing evidence-based standards for the evaluation of the most significant risk factors.


Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Osteoporosis/diagnosis , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL