AIM: We evaluated the reproducibility of prompts using the R2 ImageChecker M2000 computer-aided detection (CAD) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty selected two-view mammograms of @entity1 with @entity0 were digitized and analysed using the ImageChecker on 10 separate occasions. The mammograms were chosen to provide both straightforward and subtle signs of @entity5 . Data analysed included mammographic abnormality, pathology, and whether the @entity5 was prompted or given an emphasized prompt. RESULTS: Correct prompts were generated in 86 out of 100 occasions for screen-detected @entity5 . Reproducibility was less in the other categories of more @entity5 : 21% for @entity5 previously missed by CAD, a group that contained more grade 1 and small (<10 mm) @entity5 . Prompts for @entity730 were more reproducible than those for masses (76% versus 53%) and these @entity5 were more likely to have an emphasized prompt. CONCLUSIONS: Probably the most important cause of variability of prompts is shifts in film position between sequential digitizations. Consequently subtle lesions that are only just above the threshold for display may not be prompted on repeat scanning. However, users of CAD should be aware that even emphasized prompts are not consistently reproducible.

Reproducibility of prompts in computer-aided detection (CAD) of XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women'] @entity730 :: ('MESH:D002114', 'Disease') :: ['calcifications'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['subtle cancers', 'cancers', 'cancer', 'tumours', 'malignancy'] @entity0 :: ('MESH:D001943', 'Disease') :: ['breast cancer']
@entity0 :: (MESH:D001943,Disease) :: ['breast cancer']
