Literature DB >> 27147365

On the meaning of the weighted alternative free-response operating characteristic figure of merit.

Dev P Chakraborty1, Xuetong Zhai2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) method is being increasingly used to evaluate observer performance in search tasks. Data analysis requires definition of a figure of merit (FOM) quantifying performance. While a number of FOMs have been proposed, the recommended one, namely, the weighted alternative FROC (wAFROC) FOM, is not well understood. The aim of this work is to clarify the meaning of this FOM by relating it to the empirical area under a proposed wAFROC curve.
METHODS: The weighted wAFROC FOM is defined in terms of a quasi-Wilcoxon statistic that involves weights, coding the clinical importance, assigned to each lesion. A new wAFROC curve is proposed, the y-axis of which incorporates the weights, giving more credit for marking clinically important lesions, while the x-axis is identical to that of the AFROC curve. An expression is derived relating the area under the empirical wAFROC curve to the wAFROC FOM. Examples are presented with small numbers of cases showing how AFROC and wAFROC curves are affected by correct and incorrect decisions and how the corresponding FOMs credit or penalize these decisions. The wAFROC, AFROC, and inferred ROC FOMs were applied to three clinical data sets involving multiple reader FROC interpretations in different modalities.
RESULTS: It is shown analytically that the area under the empirical wAFROC curve equals the wAFROC FOM. This theorem is the FROC analog of a well-known theorem developed in 1975 for ROC analysis, which gave meaning to a Wilcoxon statistic based ROC FOM. A similar equivalence applies between the area under the empirical AFROC curve and the AFROC FOM. The examples show explicitly that the wAFROC FOM gives equal importance to all diseased cases, regardless of the number of lesions, a desirable statistical property not shared by the AFROC FOM. Applications to the clinical data sets show that the wAFROC FOM yields results comparable to that using the AFROC FOM.
CONCLUSIONS: The equivalence theorem gives meaning to the weighted AFROC FOM, namely, it is identical to the empirical area under weighted AFROC curve.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27147365      PMCID: PMC4851628          DOI: 10.1118/1.4947125

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  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.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Nonparametric signal detectability evaluation using an exponential transformation of the FROC curve.

Authors:  Lucretiu M Popescu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  An improved method for simulating microcalcifications in digital mammograms.

Authors:  Federica Zanca; Dev Prasad Chakraborty; Chantal Van Ongeval; Jurgen Jacobs; Filip Claus; Guy Marchal; Hilde Bosmans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty; E S Breatnach; M V Yester; B Soto; G T Barnes; R G Fraser
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  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

8.  A free-response evaluation determining value in the computed tomography attenuation correction image for revealing pulmonary incidental findings: a phantom study.

Authors:  John D Thompson; Peter Hogg; David J Manning; Katy Szczepura; Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.

Authors:  Ingvar Andersson; Debra M Ikeda; Sophia Zackrisson; Mark Ruschin; Tony Svahn; Pontus Timberg; Anders Tingberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  3 in total

1.  ROC or FROC? It depends on the research question.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Dev P Chakraborty; Colin G Orton
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Lung nodule detection in chest X-rays using synthetic ground-truth data comparing CNN-based diagnosis to human performance.

Authors:  Manuel Schultheiss; Philipp Schmette; Jannis Bodden; Juliane Aichele; Christina Müller-Leisse; Felix G Gassert; Florian T Gassert; Joshua F Gawlitza; Felix C Hofmann; Daniel Sasse; Claudio E von Schacky; Sebastian Ziegelmayer; Fabio De Marco; Bernhard Renger; Marcus R Makowski; Franz Pfeiffer; Daniela Pfeiffer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Investigating Low-Dose Image Quality in Whole-Body Pediatric 18F-FDG Scans Using Time-of-Flight PET/MRI.

Authors:  Jeffrey P Schmall; Suleman Surti; Hansel J Otero; Sabah Servaes; Joel S Karp; Lisa J States
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 11.082

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.