Literature DB >> 22559651

A scaling transformation for classifier output based on likelihood ratio: applications to a CAD workstation for diagnosis of breast cancer.

Karla Horsch1, Lorenzo L Pesce, Maryellen L Giger, Charles E Metz, Yulei Jiang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The authors developed scaling methods that monotonically transform the output of one classifier to the "scale" of another. Such transformations affect the distribution of classifier output while leaving the ROC curve unchanged. In particular, they investigated transformations between radiologists and computer classifiers, with the goal of addressing the problem of comparing and interpreting case-specific values of output from two classifiers.
METHODS: Using both simulated and radiologists' rating data of breast imaging cases, the authors investigated a likelihood-ratio-scaling transformation, based on "matching" classifier likelihood ratios. For comparison, three other scaling transformations were investigated that were based on matching classifier true positive fraction, false positive fraction, or cumulative distribution function, respectively. The authors explored modifying the computer output to reflect the scale of the radiologist, as well as modifying the radiologist's ratings to reflect the scale of the computer. They also evaluated how dataset size affects the transformations.
RESULTS: When ROC curves of two classifiers differed substantially, the four transformations were found to be quite different. The likelihood-ratio scaling transformation was found to vary widely from radiologist to radiologist. Similar results were found for the other transformations. Our simulations explored the effect of database sizes on the accuracy of the estimation of our scaling transformations.
CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood-ratio-scaling transformation that the authors have developed and evaluated was shown to be capable of transforming computer and radiologist outputs to a common scale reliably, thereby allowing the comparison of the computer and radiologist outputs on the basis of a clinically relevant statistic.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22559651      PMCID: PMC3350543          DOI: 10.1118/1.3700168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  18 in total

1.  Continuous versus categorical data for ROC analysis: some quantitative considerations.

Authors:  R F Wagner; S V Beiden; C E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study.

Authors:  H P Chan; B Sahiner; M A Helvie; N Petrick; M A Roubidoux; T E Wilson; D D Adler; C Paramagul; J S Newman; S Sanjay-Gopal
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  "Proper" Binormal ROC Curves: Theory and Maximum-Likelihood Estimation.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.223

4.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

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

5.  Breast cancer: effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis observer study with independent database of mammograms.

Authors:  Zhimin Huo; Maryellen L Giger; Carl J Vyborny; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Gains in accuracy from replicated readings of diagnostic images: prediction and assessment in terms of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz; J H Shen
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1992 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis.

Authors:  Y Jiang; R M Nishikawa; R A Schmidt; C E Metz; M L Giger; K Doi
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 8.  ROC methodology in radiologic imaging.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 6.016

9.  Semiparametric estimation of the relationship between ROC operating points and the test-result scale: application to the proper binormal model.

Authors:  Lorenzo L Pesce; Karla Horsch; Karen Drukker; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of "proper" binormal ROC curves.

Authors:  Lorenzo L Pesce; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  3 in total

1.  Semiparametric estimation of the relationship between ROC operating points and the test-result scale: application to the proper binormal model.

Authors:  Lorenzo L Pesce; Karla Horsch; Karen Drukker; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Additive Benefit of Radiomics Over Size Alone in the Distinction Between Benign Lesions and Luminal A Cancers on a Large Clinical Breast MRI Dataset.

Authors:  Heather M Whitney; Nathan S Taylor; Karen Drukker; Alexandra V Edwards; John Papaioannou; David Schacht; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Calibration of medical diagnostic classifier scores to the probability of disease.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Berkman Sahiner; Frank Samuelson; Aria Pezeshk; Nicholas Petrick
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 3.021

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.