2011
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.09.4037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Bayesian Network for Differentiating Benign From Malignant Thyroid Nodules Using Sonographic and Demographic Features

Abstract: We created a BN that incorporates a range of sonographic and demographic features and provides a probability about whether a thyroid nodule is benign or malignant. The BN distinguished between benign and malignant thyroid nodules as well as the expert radiologists did.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
17
1
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
17
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, numerous imaging classifiers exist to distinguish benign from malignant nodules (16, 3437). The majority of these studies utilize ultrasound features and statistical models to select nodules with the highest cancer risk for FNA biopsy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similarly, numerous imaging classifiers exist to distinguish benign from malignant nodules (16, 3437). The majority of these studies utilize ultrasound features and statistical models to select nodules with the highest cancer risk for FNA biopsy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nomograms combine clinical, laboratory, imaging, and demographic data (14, 15). There also has been interest in analyzing ultrasound features to predict malignancy, but no single feature is sensitive or specific enough to preclude surgery (1618). More recently, several molecular tests have been developed to classify ITN as either benign or malignant.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We only found 8 studies in this field, most of them using information from imaging tests or pathology reports. We considered laboratory information as a secondary step that should be applied after defining the risk of malignancy of the nodule (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) If we consider individual variables, as shown in table 3, lower risk factors, as may be seen in middle-aged female patients, are assigned a malignancy probability of 19%, a patient without risk factors, such as radiotherapy or family history, is assigned a probability of 25% or a patient with multiple nodules that are smaller than 1 cm and have a soft consistency is assigned a probability of 20%, which are clearly higher than those reported in the literature, of finding carcinoma in an index nodule, which is approximately 5 to 15%. This was corroborated by the clinical cases, in which a patient without any risk factors is assigned a probability of malignancy of 19%, and in the final results that were obtained by the network, where a patient without risk factors has a basal probability of malignancy of 33%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, to built a Bayesian classifier to predict breast cancer. And also given that sonographic features predictive of malignancy have been extensively studied and the sensitivity and specificity of these features for malignancy are readily available [12]. In simple terms, a naive Bayes classifier assumes that the presence (or absence) of a particular feature of a class is unrelated to the presence (or absence) of any other feature, given the class variable.…”
Section: Bayesian Classifiermentioning
confidence: 99%