Literature DB >> 22306064

Evaluating imaging and computer-aided detection and diagnosis devices at the FDA.

Brandon D Gallas1, 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.   

Abstract

This report summarizes the Joint FDA-MIPS Workshop on Methods for the Evaluation of Imaging and Computer-Assist Devices. The purpose of the workshop was to gather information on the current state of the science and facilitate consensus development on statistical methods and study designs for the evaluation of imaging devices to support US Food and Drug Administration submissions. Additionally, participants expected to identify gaps in knowledge and unmet needs that should be addressed in future research. This summary is intended to document the topics that were discussed at the meeting and disseminate the lessons that have been learned through past studies of imaging and computer-aided detection and diagnosis device performance. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22306064      PMCID: PMC5557046          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.12.016

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


  85 in total

1.  Feature selection and classifier performance in computer-aided diagnosis: the effect of finite sample size.

Authors:  B Sahiner; H P Chan; N Petrick; R F Wagner; L Hadjiiski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Carolyn M Rutter; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Multireader multicase variance analysis for binary data.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Gene A Pennello; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.129

4.  A non-inferiority test for diagnostic accuracy based on the paired partial areas under ROC curves.

Authors:  Chi-Rong Li; Chen-Tuo Liao; Jen-Pei Liu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  On the convexity of ROC curves estimated from radiological test results.

Authors:  Lorenzo L Pesce; Charles E Metz; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1989 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Variability in the interpretation of mammograms.

Authors:  C J D'Orsi; J A Swets
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-04-27       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Consistency of methods for analysing location-specific data.

Authors:  F Zanca; D P Chakraborty; G Marchal; H Bosmans
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 0.972

10.  Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Peter J Mazzone; Abraham H Dachman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Compressed sensing MRI: a review of the clinical literature.

Authors:  Oren N Jaspan; Roman Fleysher; Michael L Lipton
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Multireader multicase reader studies with binary agreement data: simulation, analysis, validation, and sizing.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Adam Wunderlich; Nicholas Petrick; Brandon D Gallas
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-12-04

3.  Influence of study design in receiver operating characteristics studies: sequential versus independent reading.

Authors:  Steven Schalekamp; Bram van Ginneken; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-04-23

4.  Generalized Roe and Metz receiver operating characteristic model: analytic link between simulated decision scores and empirical AUC variances and covariances.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-09-25

5.  Open access image repositories: high-quality data to enable machine learning research.

Authors:  F Prior; J Almeida; P Kathiravelu; T Kurc; K Smith; T J Fitzgerald; J Saltz
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2019-04-28       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Paired split-plot designs of multireader multicase studies.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Qi Gong; Brandon D Gallas
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-05-17

Review 7.  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

8.  The average receiver operating characteristic curve in multireader multicase imaging studies.

Authors:  W Chen; F W Samuelson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi; Mitko Veta; Paul Johannes van Diest; Bram van Ginneken; Nico Karssemeijer; Geert Litjens; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Meyke Hermsen; Quirine F Manson; Maschenka Balkenhol; Oscar Geessink; Nikolaos Stathonikos; Marcory Crf van Dijk; Peter Bult; Francisco Beca; Andrew H Beck; Dayong Wang; Aditya Khosla; Rishab Gargeya; Humayun Irshad; Aoxiao Zhong; Qi Dou; Quanzheng Li; Hao Chen; Huang-Jing Lin; Pheng-Ann Heng; Christian Haß; Elia Bruni; Quincy Wong; Ugur Halici; Mustafa Ümit Öner; Rengul Cetin-Atalay; Matt Berseth; Vitali Khvatkov; Alexei Vylegzhanin; Oren Kraus; Muhammad Shaban; Nasir Rajpoot; Ruqayya Awan; Korsuk Sirinukunwattana; Talha Qaiser; Yee-Wah Tsang; David Tellez; Jonas Annuscheit; Peter Hufnagl; Mira Valkonen; Kimmo Kartasalo; Leena Latonen; Pekka Ruusuvuori; Kaisa Liimatainen; Shadi Albarqouni; Bharti Mungal; Ami George; Stefanie Demirci; Nassir Navab; Seiryo Watanabe; Shigeto Seno; Yoichi Takenaka; Hideo Matsuda; Hady Ahmady Phoulady; Vassili Kovalev; Alexander Kalinovsky; Vitali Liauchuk; Gloria Bueno; M Milagro Fernandez-Carrobles; Ismael Serrano; Oscar Deniz; Daniel Racoceanu; Rui Venâncio
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.