Ok Hee Woo

Dr. Ok Hee Woo

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

25Years (2002-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
18 September 2018 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HJHwejin Jung
Hwejin Jung
BKBumsoo Kim
Bumsoo Kim
ILInyeop Lee
Inyeop Lee
MYMinhwan Yoo
Minhwan Yoo
JLJunhyun Lee
Junhyun Lee
JKJaewoo Kang
Jaewoo Kang
Several computer aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed for mammography. They are widely used in certain countries such as the U.S. where mammography studies are conducted more frequently; however, they are not yet globally employed for clinical use due to their inconsistent performance, which can be attributed to their reliance on hand-crafted features. It is difficult to use hand-crafted features for mammogram images that vary due to factors such as the breast density of patients and differences in imaging devices. To address these problems, several studies have leveraged a deep convolutional neural network that does not require hand-crafted features. Among the recent object detectors, RetinaNet is particularly promising as it is a simpler one-stage object detector that is fast and efficient while achieving state-of-the-art performance. RetinaNet has been proven to perform conventional object detection tasks but has not been tested on detecting masses in mammograms. Thus, we propose a mass detection model based on RetinaNet. To validate its performance in diverse use cases, we construct several experimental setups using the public dataset INbreast and the in-house dataset GURO. In addition to training and testing on the same dataset (i.e., training and testing on INbreast), we evaluate our mass detection model in setups using additional training data (i.e., training on INbreast + GURO and testing on INbreast). We also evaluate our model in setups using pre-trained weights (i.e., using weights pre-trained on GURO, training and testing on INbreast). In all the experiments, our mass detection model achieves comparable or better performance than more complex state-of-the-art models including the two-stage object detector. Also, the results show that using the weights pre-trained on datasets achieves similar performance as directly using datasets in the training phase. Therefore, we make our mass detection model’s weights pre-trained on both GURO and INbreast publicly available. We expect that researchers who train RetinaNet on their in-house dataset for the mass detection task can use our pre-trained weights to leverage the features extracted from the datasets.

1 January 2019 in Korean Journal of Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APAH Young Park
AH Young Park
MKMyoungae Kwon
Myoungae Kwon
OWOk Hee Woo
Ok Hee Woo
KCKyu Ran Cho
Kyu Ran Cho
EPEun Kyung Park
Eun Kyung Park
BSBo Kyoung Seo
Bo Kyoung Seo
Park AY, et al. Korean J Radiol. 2019 May;20(5):759-772. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0515

8 February 2015 in Cancer Imaging
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SSSung Eun song
Sung Eun song
BSBo Kyoung Seo
Bo Kyoung Seo
KCKyu Ran Cho
Kyu Ran Cho
OWOk Hee Woo
Ok Hee Woo
GSGil Soo Son
Gil Soo Son
SKSoon-Sun Kwon
Soon-Sun Kwon
We aimed to investigate the efficacy of computer-aided detection (CAD) for MRI in the assessment of tumor extent, lymph node status, and multifocality in invasive breast cancers in comparison with other breast imaging modalities. Two radiologists measured the maximum tumor size, as well as, analyzed lymph node status and multifocality in 86 patients with invasive breast cancers using mammography, ultrasound, CT, MRI with and without CAD, and 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). The assessed data were compared with pathology. For tumor extent, there were no significant differences between pathological size and measured size using mammography, ultrasound, CT, or MRI with and without CAD (P > 0.05). For evaluation of lymph node status, ultrasound had the best kappa coefficients (0.522) for agreement between imaging and pathology, and diagnostic performance with 92.1% specificity and 90.0% positive predictive value. For multifocality, MRI with CAD had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC = 0.888). CAD for MRI is feasible to assess tumor extent and multifocality in invasive breast cancer patients. However, CAD is not effective in evaluation of nodal status.

5 January 2024 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SOSangseok Oh
Sangseok Oh
WKWoo Young Kang
Woo Young Kang
HPHeejun Park
Heejun Park
ZYZepa Yang
Zepa Yang
JLJemyoung Lee
Jemyoung Lee
SHSuk-Joo Hong¹
Suk-Joo Hong¹
To evaluate diagnostic efficacy of deep learning (DL)-based automated bone mineral density (BMD) measurement for opportunistic screening of osteoporosis with routine computed tomography (CT) scans. A DL-based automated quantitative computed tomography (DL-QCT) solution was evaluated with 112 routine clinical CT scans from 84 patients who underwent either chest (N:39), lumbar spine (N:34), or abdominal CT (N:39) scan. The automated BMD measurements (DL-BMD) on L1 and L2 vertebral bodies from DL-QCT were validated with manual BMD (m-BMD) measurement from conventional asynchronous QCT using Pearson’s correlation and intraclass correlation. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis identified the diagnostic ability of DL-BMD for low BMD and osteoporosis, determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and m-BMD. Excellent concordance were seen between m-BMD and DL-BMD in total CT scans (r = 0.961/0.979). The ROC-derived AUC of DL-BMD compared to that of central DXA for the low-BMD and osteoporosis patients was 0.847 and 0.770 respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DL-BMD compared to central DXA for low BMD were 75.0%, 75.0%, and 75.0%, respectively, and those for osteoporosis were 68.0%, 80.5%, and 77.7%. The AUC of DL-BMD compared to the m-BMD for low BMD and osteoporosis diagnosis were 0.990 and 0.943, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DL-BMD compared to m-BMD for low BMD were 95.5%, 93.5%, and 94.6%, and those for osteoporosis were 88.2%, 94.5%, and 92.9%, respectively. DL-BMD exhibited excellent agreement with m-BMD on L1 and L2 vertebrae in the various routine clinical CT scans and had comparable diagnostic performance for detecting the low-BMD and osteoporosis on conventional QCT.

1 October 2015 in European Journal of Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JPJiyoon Park
Jiyoon Park
OWOk Hee Woo
Ok Hee Woo
HSHye Seon Shin
Hye Seon Shin
KCKyu Ran Cho
Kyu Ran Cho
BSBo Kyoung Seo
Bo Kyoung Seo
EKEun Young Kang
Eun Young Kang

10 November 2020 in Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SSSung Eun Song
Sung Eun Song
OWOk Hee Woo
Ok Hee Woo
KCKyu Ran Cho
Kyu Ran Cho
BSBo Kyoung Seo
Bo Kyoung Seo
YSYo Han Son
Yo Han Son
WMWoo Kyung Moon
Woo Kyung Moon