Literature DB >> 11450961

Components-of-variance models for random-effects ROC analysis: the case of unequal variance structures across modalities.

S V Beiden1, R F Wagner, G Campbell, C E Metz, Y Jiang.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Several of the authors have previously published an analysis of multiple sources of uncertainty in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) assessment and comparison of diagnostic modalities. The analysis assumed that the components of variance were the same for the modalities under comparison. The purpose of the present work is to obtain a generalization that does not require that assumption.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The generalization is achieved by splitting three of the six components of variance in the previous model into modality-dependent contributions. Two distinct formulations of this approach can be obtained from alternative choices of the three components to be split; however, a one-to-one relationship exists between the magnitudes of the components estimated from these two formulations.
RESULTS: The method is applied to a study of multiple readers, with and without the aid of a computer-assist modality. performing the task of discriminating between benign and malignant clusters of microcalcifications. Analysis according to the first method of splitting shows large decreases in the reader and reader-by-case components of variance when the computer assist is used by the readers. Analysis in terms of the alternative splitting shows large decreases in the corresponding modality-interaction components.
CONCLUSION: A solution to the problem of multivariate ROC analysis without the assumption of equal variance structure across modalities has been provided. Alternative formulations lead to consistent results related by a one-to-one mapping. A surprising result is that estimates of confidence intervals and numbers of cases and readers required for a specified confidence interval remain the same in the more general model as in the restricted model.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11450961     DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80685-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  8 in total

Review 1.  ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature.

Authors:  Charles E Metz
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2007-10-27

2.  The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Carl R Fuhrman; Amy H Klym; Jill L King; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Generalized Roe and Metz receiver operating characteristic model: analytic link between simulated decision scores and empirical AUC variances and covariances.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-09-25

4.  Correlation of free-response and receiver-operating-characteristic area-under-the-curve estimates: results from independently conducted FROC∕ROC studies in mammography.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Stephen L Hillis; Filip Claus; Chantal Van Ongeval; Valerie Celis; Veerle Provoost; Hong-Jun Yoon; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Sample size tables for computer-aided detection studies.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Multi-reader ROC studies with split-plot designs: a comparison of statistical methods.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Brandon D Gallas; Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Comparative statistical properties of expected utility and area under the ROC curve for laboratory studies of observer performance in screening mammography.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Brandon D Gallas; John M Boone; Loren T Niklason; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner; Frank W Samuelson
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.173

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.