Literature DB >> 23122570

Multi-reader ROC studies with split-plot designs: a comparison of statistical methods.

Nancy A Obuchowski1, Brandon D Gallas, Stephen L Hillis.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: Multireader imaging trials often use a factorial design, in which study patients undergo testing with all imaging modalities and readers interpret the results of all tests for all patients. A drawback of this design is the large number of interpretations required of each reader. Split-plot designs have been proposed as an alternative, in which one or a subset of readers interprets all images of a sample of patients, while other readers interpret the images of other samples of patients. In this paper, the authors compare three methods of analysis for the split-plot design.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three statistical methods are presented: the Obuchowski-Rockette method modified for the split-plot design, a newly proposed marginal-mean analysis-of-variance approach, and an extension of the three-sample U-statistic method. A simulation study using the Roe-Metz model was performed to compare the type I error rate, power, and confidence interval coverage of the three test statistics.
RESULTS: The type I error rates for all three methods are close to the nominal level but tend to be slightly conservative. The statistical power is nearly identical for the three methods. The coverage of 95% confidence intervals falls close to the nominal coverage for small and large sample sizes.
CONCLUSIONS: The split-plot multireader, multicase study design can be statistically efficient compared to the factorial design, reducing the number of interpretations required per reader. Three methods of analysis, shown to have nominal type I error rates, similar power, and nominal confidence interval coverage, are available for this study design.
Copyright © 2012 AUR. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23122570      PMCID: PMC3522484          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.09.012

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


  23 in total

1.  Components-of-variance models and multiple-bootstrap experiments: an alternative method for random-effects, receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Authors:  S V Beiden; R F Wagner; G Campbell
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Components-of-variance models for random-effects ROC analysis: the case of unequal variance structures across modalities.

Authors:  S V Beiden; R F Wagner; G Campbell; C E Metz; Y Jiang
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Sergey V Beiden; Kevin S Berbaum; Stephen L Hillis; Hemant Ishwaran; Hae Hiang Song; Robert F Wagner
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  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

5.  A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  One-shot estimate of MRMC variance: AUC.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Reader studies for validation of CAD systems.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; David G Brown
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  2007-12-23

8.  Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates.

Authors:  C A Roe; C E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 9.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine.

Authors:  M H Zweig; G Campbell
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 8.327

10.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample.

Authors:  C A Beam; P M Layde; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-01-22
View more
  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Computer-based self-training for CT colonography with and without CAD.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Silvia Delsanto; Daniela Sacchetto; Loredana Correale; Massimo Falchini; Andrea Ferraris; Giovanni Gandini; Giulia Grazzini; Franco Iafrate; Gabriella Iussich; Lia Morra; Andrea Laghi; Mario Mascalchi; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

4.  Impact of prevalence and case distribution in lab-based diagnostic imaging studies.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Weijie Chen; Elodia Cole; Robert Ochs; Nicholas Petrick; Etta D Pisano; Berkman Sahiner; Frank W Samuelson; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-01-21

5.  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

6.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

Authors:  S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Impact of Different Study Populations on Reader Behavior and Performance Metrics: Initial Results.

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; Etta Pisano; Elodia Cole; Kyle Myers
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2017-03-10

8.  Can We Perform CT of the Appendix with Less Than 1 mSv? A De-escalating Dose-simulation Study.

Authors:  Ji Hoon Park; Jong-June Jeon; Sung Soo Lee; Amar C Dhanantwari; Ji Ye Sim; Hae Young Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Rapid perceptual processing in two- and three-dimensional prostate images.

Authors:  Melissa Treviño; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Marcin Czarniecki; Peter L Choyke; Todd S Horowitz
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-01-03

10.  Evaluation of Pseudoreader Study Designs to Estimate Observer Performance Results as an Alternative to Fully Crossed, Multireader, Multicase Studies.

Authors:  Rickey E Carter; David R Holmes; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.