1,720,975 research outputs found
Assessment of Diagnostic Performance of Dermatologists Cooperating With a Convolutional Neural Network in a Prospective Clinical Study
No full textImportance Studies suggest that convolutional neural networks (CNNs) perform equally to trained dermatologists in skin lesion classification tasks. Despite the approval of the first neural networks for clinical use, prospective studies demonstrating benefits of human with machine cooperation are lacking. Objective To assess whether dermatologists benefit from cooperation with a market-approved CNN in classifying melanocytic lesions. Design, Setting, and Participants In this prospective diagnostic 2-center study, dermatologists performed skin cancer screenings using naked-eye examination and dermoscopy. Dermatologists graded suspect melanocytic lesions by the probability of malignancy (range 0-1, threshold for malignancy ≥0.5) and indicated management decisions (no action, follow-up, excision). Next, dermoscopic images of suspect lesions were assessed by a market-approved CNN, Moleanalyzer Pro (FotoFinder Systems). The CNN malignancy scores (range 0-1, threshold for malignancy ≥0.5) were transferred to dermatologists with the request to re-evaluate lesions and revise initial decisions in consideration of CNN results. Reference diagnoses were based on histopathologic examination in 125 (54.8%) lesions or, in the case of nonexcised lesions, on clinical follow-up data and expert consensus. Data were collected from October 2020 to October 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome measures were diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of dermatologists alone and dermatologists cooperating with the CNN. Accuracy and receiver operator characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) were considered as additional measures. Results A total of 22 dermatologists detected 228 suspect melanocytic lesions (190 nevi, 38 melanomas) in 188 patients (mean [range] age, 53.4 [19-91] years; 97 [51.6%] male patients). Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity significantly improved when dermatologists additionally integrated CNN results into decision-making (mean sensitivity from 84.2% [95% CI, 69.6%-92.6%] to 100.0% [95% CI, 90.8%-100.0%]; P = .03; mean specificity from 72.1% [95% CI, 65.3%-78.0%] to 83.7% [95% CI, 77.8%-88.3%]; P < .001; mean accuracy from 74.1% [95% CI, 68.1%-79.4%] to 86.4% [95% CI, 81.3%-90.3%]; P < .001; and mean ROC AUC from 0.895 [95% CI, 0.836-0.954] to 0.968 [95% CI, 0.948-0.988]; P = .005). In addition, the CNN alone achieved a comparable sensitivity, higher specificity, and higher diagnostic accuracy compared with dermatologists alone in classifying melanocytic lesions. Moreover, unnecessary excisions of benign nevi were reduced by 19.2%, from 104 (54.7%) of 190 benign nevi to 84 nevi when dermatologists cooperated with the CNN ( P < .001). Most lesions were examined by dermatologists with 2 to 5 years (96, 42.1%) or less than 2 years of experience (78, 34.2%); others (54, 23.7%) were evaluated by dermatologists with more than 5 years of experience. Dermatologists with less dermoscopy experience cooperating with the CNN had the most diagnostic improvement compared with more experienced dermatologists. Conclusions and Relevance In this prospective diagnostic study, these findings suggest that dermatologists may improve their performance when they cooperate with the market-approved CNN and that a broader application of this human with machine approach could be beneficial for dermatologists and patients
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Differentiation of combined nevi and melanomas: Case‐control study with comparative analysis of dermoscopic features
No full textSkin lesions of face and scalp – Classification by a market-approved convolutional neural network in comparison with 64 dermatologists
No full textDoes sex matter? Analysis of sex-related differences in the diagnostic performance of a market-approved convolutional neural network for skin cancer detection
No full textPast and present of computer-assisted dermoscopic diagnosis: performance of a conventional image analyser versus a convolutional neural network in a prospective data set of 1,981 skin lesions
No full textDispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
