Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 4/2013

01-08-2013

Black Box Integration of Computer-Aided Diagnosis into PACS Deserves a Second Chance: Results of a Usability Study Concerning Bone Age Assessment

Authors: Ina Geldermann, Christoph Grouls, Christiane Kuhl, Thomas M. Deserno, Cord Spreckelsen

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 4/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Usability aspects of different integration concepts for picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) were inquired on the example of BoneXpert, a program determining the skeletal age from a left hand’s radiograph. CAD-PACS integration was assessed according to its levels: data, function, presentation, and context integration focusing on usability aspects. A user-based study design was selected. Statements of seven experienced radiologists using two alternative types of integration provided by BoneXpert were acquired and analyzed using a mixed-methods approach based on think-aloud records and a questionnaire. In both variants, the CAD module (BoneXpert) was easily integrated in the workflow, found comprehensible and fitting in the conceptual framework of the radiologists. Weak points of the software integration referred to data and context integration. Surprisingly, visualization of intermediate image processing states (presentation integration) was found less important as compared to efficient handling and fast computation. Seamlessly integrating CAD into the PACS without additional work steps or unnecessary interrupts and without visualizing intermediate images may considerably improve software performance and user acceptance with efforts in time.
Literature
1.
Clarke JR: Appendicitis: the computer as a diagnostic tool. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5:371, 2009CrossRef
2.
Andriole KP, Morin RL, Arenson RL, Carrino JA, Erickson BJ, Horii SC, et al: Addressing the coming radiology crisis—the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology transforming the radiological interpretation process (TRIP) initiative. J Digit Imaging 17:235–243, 2004PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zhou Z, Liu BJ, Le AH: CAD-PACS integration tool kit based on DICOM secondary capture, structured report and IHE workflow profiles. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:346–352, 2007PubMedCrossRef
4.
Doi K: Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:198–211, 2007PubMedCrossRef
5.
Antani S, Xue Z, Long LR, Bennett D, Ward S, Thoma GR: Is there a need for biomedical CBIR systems in clinical practice? Outcomes from a usability study. Proc SPIE 7967:8, 2011
6.
Bitter I, Van Uitert R, Wolf I, Ibanez L, Kuhnigk J-M: Comparison of four freely available frameworks for image processing and visualization that use ITK. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 13:483–493, 2007PubMedCrossRef
7.
Mayring P: Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. ed 5. Weinheim, Beltz Verlag, 2002.
8.
9.
Gilsanz V, Ratib O: Hand Bone Age. A Digital Atlas of Skeletal Maturity. Springer, Berlin, 2005
10.
Thodberg HH: Clinical review: an automated method for determination of bone age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94:2239–2244, 2009PubMedCrossRef
11.
Schmeling A, Lockemann U, Olze A, Reisinger W, Fuhrmann A, Püschel K, Geserick G: Forensische Altersdiagnostik bei Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen. Dtsch Arztebl 101(18=: A 1261–1265, 2004
12.
Schmitt R, Lanz U: Diagnostic Imaging of the Hand. Thieme, Stuttgart, 2008
13.
Greulich WW, Pyle SI: Radiographic Atlas of Skeletal Development of the Hand and Wrist, 2nd edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1961
14.
Tanner JM, Whitehouse RH, Cameron N, Marshall WA, Healy MJR, Goldstein H: Assessment of Skeletal Maturity and Prediction of Adult Height (TW2 method). Academic, London, 1975
15.
Pietka E, Gertych A, Pospiech S, Cao F, Huang HK, Gilsanz V: Computer-assisted bone age assessment: image preprocessing and epiphyseal/metaphyseal ROI extraction. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:715–729, 2001PubMedCrossRef
16.
Gertych A, Zhang A, Sayre J, Pospiech-Kurkowska S, Huang HK: Bone age assessment of children using a digital hand atlas. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31:322–331, 2007PubMedCrossRef
17.
Harmsen M, Fischer B, Schramm H, Seidl T, Deserno TM: Support vector machine classification based on correlation prototypes applied to bone age assessment. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed, 2013. doi:10.​1109/​TITB.​2012.​2228211
18.
Zhang YJ: A review of recent evaluation methods for image segmentation. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Signal Processing and Its Applications. IEEE, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2001, pp 148–151.
19.
20.
Mueller H: Efficient Access Methods for Content-Based Image Retrieval with Inverted Files. Proc SPIE 3846:461–472, 1999.
21.
Abe H, MacMahon H, Engelmann R, Li Q, Shiraishi J, Katsuragawa S, et al: Computer-aided diagnosis in chest radiography: results of large-scale observer tests at the 1996–2001 RSNA scientific assemblies. Radiographics 23:255–265, 2003PubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Shah SGS, Robinson I, AlShawi S: Developing medical device technologies from users’ perspectives: a theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25:514, 2009PubMedCrossRef
24.
Jaspers MWM: A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform 78:340–353, 2009PubMedCrossRef
25.
Raab-Steiner E, Benesch M: Der Fragebogen?: Von der Forschungsidee zur SPSS-Auswertung. Wien, UTB, 2008
26.
Friedmann HH, Amoo T: Rating the rating scales. J Mark Manage 9:114–123, 1999
27.
Färber M, Hummel F, Gerloff C, Handels H: Virtual reality simulator for the training of lumbar punctures. Methods Inf Med 48:493–501, 2009PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lewis JR: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact 7:57–78, 1995CrossRef
29.
Willumeit H, Hamborg K, Gedinga G: Fragebogen zur Evaluation von graphischen Benutzungsschnittstellen (Kurz-Version), Version 2.01, 1997.
30.
31.
Gediga G, Hamborg K-C: IsoMetrics: Ein Verfahren zur Evaluation von Software nach ISO 9241/10. In: Hollingm H, Gediga G Eds. Evaluationsforschung. Hogrefe, Göttingen, 1999
32.
Kirakowski J, Corbett M: SUMI: the Software Usability Measurement Inventory. Br J Educ Technol 24:210–212, 1993CrossRef
33.
Nielsen J, Landauer TK: A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. New York: ACM Press, 1993, 206–213.
34.
Lehmann TM: Digitale Bildverarbeitung für Routineanwendungen?: Evaluierung und Integration am Beispiel der Medizin. Dt. Univ.-Verl, Wiesbaden, 2005CrossRef
35.
Flick U: Qualitative Sozialforschung: eine Einführung. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verl., 2007.
36.
Crowley RS, Naus GJ, Stewart 3rd, J, Friedman CP: Development of visual diagnostic expertise in pathology—an information-processing study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10:39–51, 2003PubMedCrossRef
37.
Roa-Peña L, Gómez F, Romero E: An experimental study of pathologist’s navigation patterns in virtual microscopy. Diagn Pathol 5:71, 2010PubMedCrossRef
38.
Britto MT, Jimison HB, Munafo JK, Wissman J, Rogers ML, Hersh W: Usability testing finds problems for novice users of pediatric portals. J Am Med Inform Assoc 16:660–669, 2009PubMedCrossRef
39.
Gee JC: Performance evaluation of medical image processing algorithms. SPIE 3979:19–27, 2000
40.
Lehmann TM, Meinzer HP, Tolxdorff T: Advances in biomedical image analysis—past, present and future challenges. Methods Inf Med 43:308–314, 2004PubMed
41.
Bellazzi R, Diomidous M, Sarkar IN, Takabayashi K, Ziegler A, McCray AT: Data analysis and data mining: current issues in biomedical informatics. Methods Inf Med 50:536–544, 2011PubMedCrossRef
42.
Mitchell JA, Gerdin U, Lindberg DAB, Lovis C, Martin-Sanchez FJ, Miller RA, et al: 50 years of informatics research on decision support: what’s next. Methods Inf Med 50:525–535, 2011PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Black Box Integration of Computer-Aided Diagnosis into PACS Deserves a Second Chance: Results of a Usability Study Concerning Bone Age Assessment
Authors
Ina Geldermann
Christoph Grouls
Christiane Kuhl
Thomas M. Deserno
Cord Spreckelsen
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-013-9590-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

Journal of Digital Imaging 4/2013 Go to the issue

BriefCommunication

Automated Detection and Grading of Diabetic Maculopathy in Digital Retinal Images

EditorialNotes

Innovation Opportunities in Critical Results Communication: Theoretical Concepts

BriefCommunication

Semi-automatic Segmentation of Brain Tumors Using Population and Individual Information

EditorialNotes

Creating Accountability in Image Quality Analysis Part 3: Creation of a Standardized Image-Centric Mark-Up and Annotation Tool

OriginalPaper

Combination of Radiological and Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix Textural Features Used to Distinguish Solitary Pulmonary Nodules by Computed Tomography

EditorialNotes

Strategies for Radiology Reporting and Communication. Part 1: Challenges and Heightened Expectations