Craig K Abbey1,2, Miguel P Eckstein1, John M Boone2. 1. Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA (CKA, ME) 2. Department of Radiology, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA (CKA, JMB)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of diagnostic utility is a fundamental component of signal detection theory, going back to some of its earliest works. Attaching utility values to the various possible outcomes of a diagnostic test should, in principle, lead to meaningful approaches to evaluating and comparing such systems. However, in many areas of medical imaging, utility is not used because it is presumed to be unknown. METHODS: In this work, we estimate relative utility (the utility benefit of a detection relative to that of a correct rejection) for screening mammography using its known relation to the slope of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at the optimal operating point. The approach assumes that the clinical operating point is optimal for the goal of maximizing expected utility and therefore the slope at this point implies a value of relative utility for the diagnostic task, for known disease prevalence. We examine utility estimation in the context of screening mammography using the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trials (DMIST) data. RESULTS: We show how various conditions can influence the estimated relative utility, including characteristics of the rating scale, verification time, probability model, and scope of the ROC curve fit. Relative utility estimates range from 66 to 227. CONCLUSIONS: We argue for one particular set of conditions that results in a relative utility estimate of 162 (±14%). This is broadly consistent with values in screening mammography determined previously by other means. At the disease prevalence found in the DMIST study (0.59% at 365-day verification), optimal ROC slopes are near unity, suggesting that utility-based assessments of screening mammography will be similar to those found using Youden's index.
BACKGROUND: The concept of diagnostic utility is a fundamental component of signal detection theory, going back to some of its earliest works. Attaching utility values to the various possible outcomes of a diagnostic test should, in principle, lead to meaningful approaches to evaluating and comparing such systems. However, in many areas of medical imaging, utility is not used because it is presumed to be unknown. METHODS: In this work, we estimate relative utility (the utility benefit of a detection relative to that of a correct rejection) for screening mammography using its known relation to the slope of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at the optimal operating point. The approach assumes that the clinical operating point is optimal for the goal of maximizing expected utility and therefore the slope at this point implies a value of relative utility for the diagnostic task, for known disease prevalence. We examine utility estimation in the context of screening mammography using the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trials (DMIST) data. RESULTS: We show how various conditions can influence the estimated relative utility, including characteristics of the rating scale, verification time, probability model, and scope of the ROC curve fit. Relative utility estimates range from 66 to 227. CONCLUSIONS: We argue for one particular set of conditions that results in a relative utility estimate of 162 (±14%). This is broadly consistent with values in screening mammography determined previously by other means. At the disease prevalence found in the DMIST study (0.59% at 365-day verification), optimal ROC slopes are near unity, suggesting that utility-based assessments of screening mammography will be similar to those found using Youden's index.
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
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
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
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
Authors: Finn Kuusisto; Inês Dutra; Mai Elezaby; Eneida A Mendonça; Jude Shavlik; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2015-03-25
Authors: Qiu-Yue Zhong; Bizu Gelaye; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jesse R Fann; Marta B Rondon; Sixto E Sánchez; Michelle A Williams Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 3.240