Literature DB >> 17626312

"Binary" and "non-binary" detection tasks: are current performance measures optimal?

David Gur1, Howard E Rockette, Andriy I Bandos.   

Abstract

We have observed that a very large fraction of responses for several detection tasks during the performance of observer studies are in the extreme ranges of lower than 11% or higher than 89% regardless of the actual presence or absence of the abnormality in question or its subjectively rated "subtleness." This observation raises questions regarding the validity and appropriateness of using multicategory rating scales for such detection tasks. Monte Carlo simulation of binary and multicategory ratings for these tasks demonstrate that the use of the former (binary) often results in a less biased and more precise summary index and hence may lead to a higher statistical power for determining differences between modalities.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17626312     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.03.014

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


  10 in total

1.  Use of likelihood ratios for comparisons of binary diagnostic tests: underlying ROC curves.

Authors:  Andriy I Bandos; Howard E Rockette; David Gur
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Comparing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves: potential impact of the "Last" experimentally measured operating point.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Selection of a rating scale in receiver operating characteristic studies: some remaining issues.

Authors:  Howard E Rockette; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  ROCView: prototype software for data collection in jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Authors:  J Thompson; P Hogg; S Thompson; D Manning; K Szczepura
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Howard E Rockette; Margarita L Zuley; Christiane M Hakim; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Binary and multi-category ratings in a laboratory observer performance study: a comparison.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Jill L King; Amy H Klym; 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:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Agreement of the order of overall performance levels under different reading paradigms.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Amy H Klym; 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:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 8.  Multi-reader multi-case studies using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve as a measure of diagnostic accuracy: systematic review with a focus on quality of data reporting.

Authors:  Thaworn Dendumrongsup; Andrew A Plumb; Steve Halligan; Thomas R Fanshawe; Douglas G Altman; Susan Mallett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach.

Authors:  Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Susan Mallett
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Exploration of analysis methods for diagnostic imaging tests: problems with ROC AUC and confidence scores in CT colonography.

Authors:  Susan Mallett; Steve Halligan; Gary S Collins; Doug G Altman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.