Literature DB >> 26158028

Influence of study design in receiver operating characteristics studies: sequential versus independent reading.

Steven Schalekamp1, Bram van Ginneken1, Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop2, Nico Karssemeijer1.   

Abstract

Observer studies to assess new image processing devices or computer-aided diagnosis techniques are often performed, but little is known about the effect of the study design on observer performance results. We investigated the effect of the sequential and independent reading design on observer study results with respect to reader performance and their statistical power. For this we performed an observer study for the detection of lung nodules with bone-suppressed images (BSIs) compared with original chest radiographs. In a fully crossed observer study, eight observers assessed a series of 300 radiographs four times, including one assessment of the original radiograph with sequential BSI and two independent reading sessions with BSI. Observer performance was compared using multireader multicase receiver operating characteristics. No significant difference between the effect of BSI in the sequential and the independent reading sessions could be found ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]). Compared with the original radiographs, increased performance with BSI was significant in the sequential and one of the independent reading sessions ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]), and nonsignificant in the other independent reading session ([Formula: see text]). A strong increase of uncorrelated variance components was found in the independent reading sessions, masking the ability to demonstrate differences in observer performance across modalities. Therefore, the sequential reading design is the preferred design because it is less burdensome and has more statistical power.

Keywords:  bone-suppressed images; chest radiography; observer performance; observer study design; reader variability; receiver operating characteristics

Year:  2014        PMID: 26158028      PMCID: PMC4478981          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.1.1.015501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  18 in total

1.  Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way?

Authors:  Alexander A Bankier; Deborah Levine; Elkan F Halpern; Herbert Y Kressel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Improving mammographic decision accuracy by incorporating observer ratings with interpretation time.

Authors:  R S Saunders; E Samei
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.039

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

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

4.  Bone suppressed images improve radiologists' detection performance for pulmonary nodules in chest radiographs.

Authors:  Steven Schalekamp; Bram van Ginneken; Louis Meiss; Liesbeth Peters-Bax; Lorentz G B A Quekel; Miranda M Snoeren; Audrey M Tiehuis; Rianne Wittenberg; Nico Karssemeijer; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Kevin S Berbaum; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Effect of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme on radiologists' performance in detection of lung nodules on radiographs.

Authors:  T Kobayashi; X W Xu; H MacMahon; C E Metz; K Doi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Small lung cancers: improved detection by use of bone suppression imaging--comparison with dual-energy subtraction chest radiography.

Authors:  Feng Li; Roger Engelmann; Lorenzo L Pesce; Kunio Doi; Charles E Metz; Heber Macmahon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  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

9.  Variability in the interpretation of mammograms.

Authors:  C J D'Orsi; J A Swets
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-04-27       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  2 in total

1.  Multiparametric MRI for Suspected Recurrent Prostate Cancer after HIFU:Is DCE still needed?

Authors:  Raïssa Lotte; Alexandre Lafourcade; Pierre Mozer; Pierre Conort; Eric Barret; Eva Comperat; Malek Ezziane; Paul-Hugo Jouve de Guibert; Sebastian Tavolaro; Lisa Belin; Franck Boudghene; Olivier Lucidarme; Raphaële Renard-Penna
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Impact of Data Presentation on Physician Performance Utilizing Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis and Decision Support Systems.

Authors:  L Barinov; A Jairaj; M Becker; S Seymour; E Lee; A Schram; E Lane; A Goldszal; D Quigley; L Paster
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.056

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.