Literature DB >> 18790403

Performance assessments of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues.

David Gur1, Howard E Rockette.   

Abstract

As use of free response receiver-operating characteristic (FROC) curves gains more acceptance for quantitatively assessing the performance of diagnostic systems, it is important that the experimentalist understands the possible role of this approach as one of the experimental design paradigms that are available to him or her among all other approaches as well as some of the issues associated with FROC type studies. In a number of experimental scenarios, the FROC paradigm and associated analytical tools have theoretical and practical advantages over both the binary and the ROC approaches to performance assessments of diagnostic systems, but it also has some limitations related to experimental design, data analyses, clinical relevance, and complexity in the interpretation of the results. These issues are rarely discussed and are the focus of this work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18790403      PMCID: PMC2556278          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.05.006

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


  17 in total

1.  Maximum likelihood fitting of FROC curves under an initial-detection-and-candidate-analysis model.

Authors:  Darrin C Edwards; Matthew A Kupinski; Charles E Metz; Robert M Nishikawa
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases.

Authors:  Robert F Wagner; Craig A Beam; Sergey V Beiden
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC.

Authors:  Bin Zheng; Dev P Chakraborty; Howard E Rockette; Glenn S Maitz; David Gur
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-07-06       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  ROC curves predicted by a model of visual search.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-07-06       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Spatial localization accuracy of radiologists in free-response studies: Inferring perceptual FROC curves from mark-rating data.

Authors:  Dev Chakraborty; Hong-Jun Yoon; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Dual system approach to computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Chuan Zhou; Jun Ge
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Multireader receiver operating characteristic studies: a comparison of study designs.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  7 in total

1.  Quantifying the clinical relevance of a laboratory observer performance paradigm.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty; T M Haygood; J Ryan; E M Marom; M Evanoff; M F McEntee; P C Brennan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Comparison of the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers.

Authors:  Won Hwa Kim; Jung Min Chang; Hyeong-Gon Moon; Ann Yi; Hye Ryoung Koo; Hye Mi Gweon; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  ROC or FROC? It depends on the research question.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Dev P Chakraborty; Colin G Orton
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Measuring agreement between rating interpretations and binary clinical interpretations of images: a simulation study of methods for quantifying the clinical relevance of an observer performance paradigm.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Clinical relevance of the ROC and free-response paradigms for comparing imaging system efficacies.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-02-05       Impact factor: 0.972

6.  Variations in breast cancer detection rates during mammogram-reading sessions: does experience have an impact?

Authors:  Abdulaziz S Alshabibi; Moayyad E Suleiman; Salman M Albeshan; Robert Heard; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Counterpoint to "Performance assessment of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm" by Gur and Rockette.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.173

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.