Dev P Chakraborty1. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, 3520 Forbes Ave, Suite 109, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. dpc10@pitt.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to validate and compare the statistical powers of proposed methods for analyzing free-response data using a search-model-based simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A free-response data simulator is described that can model a single reader interpreting the same cases in two modalities, or two computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms, or two human observers, interpreting the same cases in one modality. A variance components model, analogous to the Roe and Metz receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) data simulator, is described; it models intracase and intermodality correlations in free-response studies. Two generic observers were simulated: a quasi-human observer and a quasi-CAD algorithm. Null hypothesis (NH) validity and statistical powers of ROC, jackknife alternative free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC), a variant of JAFROC termed JAFROC-1, initial detection and candidate analysis (IDCA), and a nonparametric (NP) approach were investigated. RESULTS: All methods had valid NH behavior over a wide range of simulator parameters. For equal numbers of normal and abnormal cases, for the human observer, the statistical power ranking of the methods was JAFROC-1 > JAFROC > (IDCA approximately NP) > ROC. For the CAD algorithm, the ranking was (NP approximately IDCA) > (JAFROC-1 approximately JAFROC) > ROC. In either case, the statistical power of the highest ranked method exceeded that of the lowest ranked method by about a factor of two. Dependence of statistical power on simulator parameters followed expected trends. For data sets with more abnormal cases than normal cases, JAFROC-1 power significantly exceeded JAFROC power. CONCLUSION: Based on this work, the recommendation is to use JAFROC-1 for human observers (including human observers with CAD assist) and the NP method for evaluating CAD algorithms.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to validate and compare the statistical powers of proposed methods for analyzing free-response data using a search-model-based simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A free-response data simulator is described that can model a single reader interpreting the same cases in two modalities, or two computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms, or two human observers, interpreting the same cases in one modality. A variance components model, analogous to the Roe and Metz receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) data simulator, is described; it models intracase and intermodality correlations in free-response studies. Two generic observers were simulated: a quasi-human observer and a quasi-CAD algorithm. Null hypothesis (NH) validity and statistical powers of ROC, jackknife alternative free-response operating characteristic (JAFROC), a variant of JAFROC termed JAFROC-1, initial detection and candidate analysis (IDCA), and a nonparametric (NP) approach were investigated. RESULTS: All methods had valid NH behavior over a wide range of simulator parameters. For equal numbers of normal and abnormal cases, for the human observer, the statistical power ranking of the methods was JAFROC-1 > JAFROC > (IDCA approximately NP) > ROC. For the CAD algorithm, the ranking was (NP approximately IDCA) > (JAFROC-1 approximately JAFROC) > ROC. In either case, the statistical power of the highest ranked method exceeded that of the lowest ranked method by about a factor of two. Dependence of statistical power on simulator parameters followed expected trends. For data sets with more abnormal cases than normal cases, JAFROC-1 power significantly exceeded JAFROC power. CONCLUSION: Based on this work, the recommendation is to use JAFROC-1 for human observers (including human observers with CAD assist) and the NP method for evaluating CAD algorithms.
Authors: Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Brandon D Gallas; Heang-Ping Chan; Carl J D'Orsi; Lori E Dodd; Maryellen L Giger; David Gur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Charles E Metz; Kyle J Myers; Nancy A Obuchowski; Berkman Sahiner; Alicia Y Toledano; Margarita L Zuley Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Tan B Nguyen; Shijun Wang; Vishal Anugu; Natalie Rose; Matthew McKenna; Nicholas Petrick; Joseph E Burns; Ronald M Summers Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 11.105
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