Literature DB >> 24884728

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

W Chen1, F W Samuelson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In multireader, multicase (MRMC) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) studies for evaluating medical imaging systems, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) is often used as a summary metric. Owing to the limitations of AUC, plotting the average ROC curve to accompany the rigorous statistical inference on AUC is recommended. The objective of this article is to investigate methods for generating the average ROC curve from ROC curves of individual readers.
METHODS: We present both a non-parametric method and a parametric method for averaging ROC curves that produce a ROC curve, the area under which is equal to the average AUC of individual readers (a property we call area preserving). We use hypothetical examples, simulated data and a real-world imaging data set to illustrate these methods and their properties.
RESULTS: We show that our proposed methods are area preserving. We also show that the method of averaging the ROC parameters, either the conventional bi-normal parameters (a, b) or the proper bi-normal parameters (c, da), is generally not area preserving and may produce a ROC curve that is intuitively not an average of multiple curves.
CONCLUSION: Our proposed methods are useful for making plots of average ROC curves in MRMC studies as a companion to the rigorous statistical inference on the AUC end point. The software implementing these methods is freely available from the authors. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: METHODS for generating the average ROC curve in MRMC ROC studies are formally investigated. The area-preserving criterion we defined is useful to evaluate such methods.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24884728      PMCID: PMC4112395          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140016

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


  13 in total

1.  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

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

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

3.  Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.

Authors:  H P Chan; M A Helvie; N Petrick; B Sahiner; D D Adler; C Paramagul; M A Roubidoux; C E Blane; L K Joynt; T E Wilson; L M Hadjiiski; M M Goodsitt
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

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

5.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

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

Authors:  Brandon D Gallas; 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
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data.

Authors:  C E Metz; B A Herman; J H Shen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Y Jiang; C E Metz; R M Nishikawa
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Inference based on diagnostic measures from studies of new imaging devices.

Authors:  Frank W Samuelson
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  8 in total

1.  Computational assessment of visual search strategies in volumetric medical images.

Authors:  Gezheng Wen; Avigael Aizenman; Trafton Drew; Jeremy M Wolfe; Tamara Miner Haygood; Mia K Markey
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-01-06

2.  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

3.  Stand-Alone Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Detection in Mammography: Comparison With 101 Radiologists.

Authors:  Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Tao Tan; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ritse M Mann; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  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

5.  Optimal reconstruction and quantitative image features for computer-aided diagnosis tools for breast CT.

Authors:  Juhun Lee; Robert M Nishikawa; Ingrid Reiser; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Classification of follicular lymphoma: the effect of computer aid on pathologists grading.

Authors:  Mohammad Faizal Ahmad Fauzi; Michael Pennell; Berkman Sahiner; Weijie Chen; Arwa Shana'ah; Jessica Hemminger; Alejandro Gru; Habibe Kurt; Michael Losos; Amy Joehlin-Price; Christina Kavran; Stephen M Smith; Nicholas Nowacki; Sharmeen Mansor; Gerard Lozanski; Metin N Gurcan
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Can we reduce the workload of mammographic screening by automatic identification of normal exams with artificial intelligence? A feasibility study.

Authors:  Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz; Kristina Lång; Albert Gubern-Merida; Jonas Teuwen; Mireille Broeders; Gisella Gennaro; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Margarita Chevalier; Thomas Mertelmeier; Matthew G Wallis; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ritse M Mann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Improving the Performance of Radiologists Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Detection Support Software for Mammography: A Multi-Reader Study.

Authors:  Jeong Hoon Lee; Ki Hwan Kim; Eun Hye Lee; Jong Seok Ahn; Jung Kyu Ryu; Young Mi Park; Gi Won Shin; Young Joong Kim; Hye Young Choi
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 7.109

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.