Literature DB >> 22573302

On the choice of acceptance radius in free-response observer performance studies.

T M Haygood1, J Ryan, P C Brennan, S Li, E M Marom, M F McEntee, M Itani, M Evanoff, D Chakraborty.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Choosing an acceptance radius or proximity criterion is necessary to analyse free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) observer performance data. This is currently subjective, with little guidance in the literature about what is an appropriate acceptance radius. We evaluated varying acceptance radii in a nodule detection task in chest radiography and suggest guidelines for determining an acceptance radius.
METHODS: 80 chest radiographs were chosen, half of which contained nodules. We determined each nodule's centre. 21 radiologists read the images. We created acceptance radii bins of <5 pixels, <10 pixels, <20 pixels and onwards up to <200 and 200+ pixels. We counted lesion localisations in each bin and visually compared marks with the borders of nodules.
RESULTS: Most reader marks were tightly clustered around nodule centres, with tighter clustering for smaller than for larger nodules. At least 70% of readers' marks were placed within <10 pixels for small nodules, <20 pixels for medium nodules and <30 pixels for large nodules. Of 72 inspected marks that were less than 50 pixels from the centre of a nodule, only 1 fell outside the border of a nodule.
CONCLUSION: The acceptance radius should be based on the larger nodule sizes. For our data, an acceptance radius of 50 pixels would have captured all but 2 reader marks within the borders of a nodule, while excluding only 1 true-positive mark. The choice of an acceptance radius for FROC analysis of observer performance studies should be based on the size of larger abnormalities.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22573302      PMCID: PMC3615402          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/42313554

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  18 in total

1.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

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

2.  The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography?

Authors:  Claudia Mello-Thoms; Stanley Dunn; Calvin F Nodine; Harold L Kundel; Susan P Weinstein
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES.

Authors:  P M FITTS; J R PETERSON
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1964-02

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.  Peripheral vision, structured noise and film reader error.

Authors:  H L Kundel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1975-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  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

Review 7.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems.

Authors:  Charles E Metz
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 8.  ROC methodology in radiologic imaging.

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

9.  Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms.

Authors:  Mónica Penedo; Miguel Souto; Pablo G Tahoces; José M Carreira; Justo Villalón; Gerardo Porto; Carmen Seoane; Juan J Vidal; Kevin S Berbaum; Dev P Chakraborty; Laurie L Fajardo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  A status report on free-response analysis.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 0.972

View more
  7 in total

1.  Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity.

Authors:  Wasfi I Suleiman; Sarah J Lewis; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Michael G Evanoff; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-05-07

2.  The Medical Image Perception Society XIV conference.

Authors:  E A Krupinski
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Does Expectation of Abnormality Affect the Search Pattern of Radiologists When Looking for Pulmonary Nodules?

Authors:  Stephen Littlefair; Patrick Brennan; Warren Reed; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Classification images for localization performance in ramp-spectrum noise.

Authors:  Craig K Abbey; Frank W Samuelson; Rongping Zeng; John M Boone; Miguel P Eckstein; Kyle Myers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  A brief history of free-response receiver operating characteristic paradigm data analysis.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Finding cancer in mammograms: if you know it's there, do you know where?

Authors:  Ann J Carrigan; Susan G Wardle; Anina N Rich
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-04-18

7.  The impact of greyscale inversion for nodule detection in an anthropomorphic chest phantom: a free-response observer study.

Authors:  John D Thompson; Nigel B Thomas; David J Manning; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.