Skip to main content
. 2018 Feb 7;28(7):2996–3006. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5280-3

Table 4.

Average reading time per reader for both conventional ABUS reading and reading the CAD-based reading workflow

Reader (years experience ABUS) Average reading time ABUS (s) 95% CI (low, high) Average reading time CAD-ABUS (s) 95% CI (low, high) Percentage decrease p value
1 (5) 171.2 156.5 186.5 166.0 150.4 181.0 3.1 0.56
2 (8) 145.4 132.4 159.1 136.1 124.5 149.6 6.5 0.24
3 (0) 146.7 132.6 162.2 123.4 113.0 134.3 15.9 < 0.001
4 (5) 175.2 158.7 190.8 140.8 130.2 150.1 19.7 0.001
5 (5) 101.2 95.7 108.4 91.2 84.7 97.7 9.9 0.008
6 (5) 138.6 127.1 151.1 110 100.1 119.4 20.6 0.001
7 (0) 217.2 197.9 236.2 160.1 148.0 172.3 26.3 0.001
8 (0) 173.3 173.3 185.2 140.9 132.3 150.0 18.7 0.001
Pooled
Average 158.3 153.0 163.6 133.4 129.2 137.6 15.7 < 0.001
Normal 151.0 143.6 158.4 125.7 120.0 131.4 16.8 < 0.001
Benign 163.0 152.6 173.3 134.8 126.4 143.1 17.3 < 0.001
Malignant 169.3 158.8 180.0 148.8 140.2 157.5 12.1 0.003

All readers were faster with CAD software. Six of eight readers were significantly faster ABUS Automated breast ultrasound

CAD Computer-aided detection software