Table 7.
The comparison of our pipeline with previously published CADs.
| CAD system | CT image database | Number of cases | Nodule size(mm) | Sensitivity (%) | Average FPR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dehmenski et al. [9] | Their own database | 70 | 3–20 | 90.0 | 14.6 |
| Suarez-Cuenca et al. [10] | Their own database | 22 | 4–27 | 80.0 | 7.7 |
| Opfer and Wiemeker [46] | LIDC database [47, 48, 50] | 93 | ≥4 | 74.0 | 4 |
| Rubin et al. [51] | Their own database | 20 | ≥3 | 76 | 3 |
| Sahiner et al. [49] | LIDC database [47, 48, 50] | 48 | 3–36.4 | 79 | 4.9 |
| Messay et al. [24] | LIDC database [47, 48, 50] | 84 | 3–30 | 82.66 | 3 |
| Suzuki et al. [52] | Their own database | 101 | 8–20 | 80.3 | 16.1 |
| Park et al. [53] | Their own database | 38 | Indefinite | 80 | – |
| Choi and Choi [23] | LIDC database [47, 48, 50] | 32 | 3–30 | 94.1 | 5.45 |
| Choi and Choi [44] | LIDC database [47, 48, 50] | 58 | 3–30 | 95.28 | 2.27 |
| Proposed method | Our database | 47 | 3–35 | 97.42 | 4.54 |