Literature DB >> 11887945

Estimation in medical imaging without a gold standard.

Matthew A Kupinski1, John W Hoppin, Eric Clarkson, Harrison H Barrett, George A Kastis.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: In medical imaging, physicians often estimate a parameter of interest (eg, cardiac ejection fraction) for a patient to assist in establishing a diagnosis. Many different estimation methods may exist, but rarely can one be considered a gold standard. Therefore, evaluation and comparison of different estimation methods are difficult. The purpose of this study was to examine a method of evaluating different estimation methods without use of a gold standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This method is equivalent to fitting regression lines without the x axis. To use this method, multiple estimates of the clinical parameter of interest for each patient of a given population were needed. The authors assumed the statistical distribution for the true values of the clinical parameter of interest was a member of a given family of parameterized distributions. Furthermore, they assumed a statistical model relating the clinical parameter to the estimates of its value. Using these assumptions and observed data, they estimated the model parameters and the parameters characterizing the distribution of the clinical parameter.
RESULTS: The authors applied the method to simulated cardiac ejection fraction data with varying numbers of patients, numbers of modalities, and levels of noise. They also tested the method on both linear and nonlinear models and characterized the performance of this method compared to that of conventional regression analysis by using x-axis information. Results indicate that the method follows trends similar to that of conventional regression analysis as patients and noise vary, although conventional regression analysis outperforms the method presented because it uses the gold standard which the authors assume is unavailable.
CONCLUSION: The method accurately estimates model parameters. These estimates can be used to rank the systems for a given estimation task.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11887945      PMCID: PMC3143018          DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80372-0

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


  10 in total

1.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability.

Authors:  H H Barrett
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 2.129

2.  Correlation of magnetic resonance and oxygen microelectrode measurements of carbogen-induced changes in tumor oxygenation.

Authors:  H A Al-Hallaq; J N River; M Zamora; H Oikawa; G S Karczmar
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1998-04-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 3.  Determination of ventricular ejection fraction: a comparison of available imaging methods. The Cardiovascular Imaging Working Group.

Authors:  J A Rumberger; T Behrenbeck; M R Bell; J F Breen; D L Johnston; D R Holmes; M Enriquez-Sarano
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 4.  ROC methodology in radiologic imaging.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 5.  Estimation of test error rates, disease prevalence and relative risk from misclassified data: a review.

Authors:  S D Walter; L M Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis without truth.

Authors:  R M Henkelman; I Kay; M J Bronskill
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1990 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 7.  Estimation of currently attainable benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40-49 years.

Authors:  S A Feig
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Prediction of myocardial infarction versus cardiac death by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: risk stratification by the amount of stress-induced ischemia and the poststress ejection fraction.

Authors:  T Sharir; G Germano; X Kang; H C Lewin; R Miranda; I Cohen; R D Agafitei; J D Friedman; D S Berman
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Gated myocardial perfusion tomography for the assessment of left ventricular function and volumes: comparison with echocardiography.

Authors:  E Cwajg; J Cwajg; Z X He; W S Hwang; F Keng; S F Nagueh; M S Verani
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 10.  Prevention and management of osteoporosis: consensus statements from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada. 2. The use of bone density measurement in the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis.

Authors:  W Sturtridge; B Lentle; D A Hanley
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 8.262

  10 in total
  18 in total

1.  Objective comparison of quantitative imaging modalities without the use of a gold standard.

Authors:  John W Hoppin; Matthew A Kupinski; George A Kastis; Eric Clarkson; Harrison H Barrett
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 2.  PET-guided delineation of radiation therapy treatment volumes: a survey of image segmentation techniques.

Authors:  Habib Zaidi; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Evaluating Estimation Techniques in Medical Imaging Without a Gold Standard: Experimental Validation.

Authors:  John W Hoppin; Matthew A Kupinski; Donald W Wilson; Todd Peterson; Benjamin Gershman; George Kastis; Eric Clarkson; Lars Furenlid; Harrison H Barrett
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2003-02-15

4.  Metrology Standards for Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers.

Authors:  Daniel C Sullivan; Nancy A Obuchowski; Larry G Kessler; David L Raunig; Constantine Gatsonis; Erich P Huang; Marina Kondratovich; Lisa M McShane; Anthony P Reeves; Daniel P Barboriak; Alexander R Guimaraes; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Bayesian framework inspired no-reference region-of-interest quality measure for brain MRI images.

Authors:  Michael Osadebey; Marius Pedersen; Douglas Arnold; Katrina Wendel-Mitoraj
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-06-13

6.  No-gold-standard evaluation of image-acquisition methods using patient data.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Eric Frey
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03-10

7.  Perfusion-weighted MR imaging studies in brain hypervascular diseases: comparison of arterial input function extractions for perfusion measurement.

Authors:  D Ducreux; I Buvat; J F Meder; D Mikulis; A Crawley; D Fredy; K TerBrugge; P Lasjaunias; J Bittoun
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  A no-gold-standard technique for objective assessment of quantitative nuclear-medicine imaging methods.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Brian Caffo; Eric C Frey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth.

Authors:  Abhinav K Jha; Na Song; Brian Caffo; Eric C Frey
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2015-04-13

10.  Harmonic subtraction for evaluating right ventricle ejection fraction from planar equilibrium radionuclide angiography.

Authors:  Dacian V Bonta; John N Aarsvold; Sandra F Grant; Naomi P Alazraki
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.