Literature DB >> 19706880

An equivalent relative utility metric for evaluating screening mammography.

Craig K Abbey1, Miguel P Eckstein, John M Boone.   

Abstract

Comparative studies of performance in screening mammography are often ambiguous. A new method will frequently show a higher sensitivity or detection rate than an existing standard with a concomitant increase in false positives or recalls. The authors propose an equivalent relative utility (ERU) metric based on signal detection theory to quantify screening performance in such comparisons. The metric is defined as the relative utility, as defined in classical signal detection theory, needed to make 2 systems equivalent. ERU avoids the problem of requiring a predefined putative relative utility, which has limited application of utility theory in receiver operating characteristic analysis. The metric can be readily estimated from recall and detection rates commonly reported in comparative clinical studies. An important practical advantage of ERU is that in prevalence matched populations, the measure can be estimated without an independent estimate of disease prevalence. Thus estimating ERU does not require a study with long-term follow-up to find cases of missed disease. The approach is applicable to any comparative screening study that reports results in terms of recall and detection rates, although the authors focus exclusively on screening mammography in this work. They derive the ERU from the definition of utility given in classical treatments of signal detection theory. They also investigate reasonable values of relative utility in screening mammography for use in interpreting ERU using data from a large clinical study. As examples of application of ERU, they reanalyze 2 recently published reports using recall and detection rates in screening mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19706880      PMCID: PMC2812591          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341753

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  11 in total

1.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.446

Review 2.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Recall and detection rates in screening mammography.

Authors:  David Gur; Jules H Sumkin; Lara A Hardesty; Ronald J Clearfield; Cathy S Cohen; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Kathleen M Harris; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature.

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

5.  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

6.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data.

Authors:  C E Metz; B A Herman; J H Shen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Evaluation and optimization of diagnostic tests using receiver operating characteristic analysis and information theory.

Authors:  E Somoza; L Soutullo-Esperon; D Mossman
Journal:  Int J Biomed Comput       Date:  1989-09

9.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.

Authors:  Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  9 in total

1.  Developing a utility decision framework to evaluate predictive models in breast cancer risk estimation.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Craig K Abbey; Xianqiao Chen; Jie Liu; David C Page; Oguzhan Alagoz; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-08-17

Review 2.  The Reproducibility of Changes in Diagnostic Figures of Merit Across Laboratory and Clinical Imaging Reader Studies.

Authors:  Frank W Samuelson; Craig K Abbey
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Using Relative Statistics and Approximate Disease Prevalence to Compare Screening Tests.

Authors:  Frank Samuelson; Craig Abbey
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 0.968

4.  Performance metric curve analysis framework to assess impact of the decision variable threshold, disease prevalence, and dataset variability in two-class classification.

Authors:  Heather M Whitney; Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-05-31

5.  "Utilizing" signal detection theory.

Authors:  Spencer K Lynn; Lisa Feldman Barrett
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2014-08-05

6.  Optimal Joint Detection and Estimation That Maximizes ROC-Type Curves.

Authors:  Adam Wunderlich; Bart Goossens; Craig K Abbey
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 10.048

7.  Developing a clinical utility framework to evaluate prediction models in radiogenomics.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; David C Page; Oguzhan Alagoz; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2015-03-17

8.  A Utility/Cost Analysis of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Algorithms.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Yirong Wu; Elizabeth S Burnside; Adam Wunderlich; Frank W Samuelson; John M Boone
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2016-03-24

9.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.