H L Kundel1, M Polansky. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors demonstrated the use of mixture distribution analysis as an alternative to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in a clinical study, where independent verification of the imaging diagnosis is not always feasible. METHODS: ROC and mixture distribution analyses were applied to the blind readings of four radiologists on a stratified, random sample of 95 screen-film radiographs and 95 computed radiographs of the chest obtained from a medical intensive care unit. The imaging diagnosis established by an expert panel was used as the truth for the ROC analysis, and agreement of ratings was used for the mixture distribution analysis. RESULTS: Both methods yielded similar values for the proportion of correct diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Mixture distribution analysis may be useful for comparing imaging techniques in situations where the true imaging diagnosis cannot be established with a method independent of that being evaluated.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors demonstrated the use of mixture distribution analysis as an alternative to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in a clinical study, where independent verification of the imaging diagnosis is not always feasible. METHODS: ROC and mixture distribution analyses were applied to the blind readings of four radiologists on a stratified, random sample of 95 screen-film radiographs and 95 computed radiographs of the chest obtained from a medical intensive care unit. The imaging diagnosis established by an expert panel was used as the truth for the ROC analysis, and agreement of ratings was used for the mixture distribution analysis. RESULTS: Both methods yielded similar values for the proportion of correct diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Mixture distribution analysis may be useful for comparing imaging techniques in situations where the true imaging diagnosis cannot be established with a method independent of that being evaluated.
Authors: Perry Orthey; Daohai Yu; Mark L Van Natta; Frederick V Ramsey; Jesus R Diaz; Paige A Bennett; Andrei H Iagaru; Roberto Salas Fragomeni; Richard W McCallum; Irene Sarosiek; William L Hasler; Gianrico Farrugia; Madhusudan Grover; Kenneth L Koch; Linda Nguyen; William J Snape; Thomas L Abell; Pankaj J Pasricha; James Tonascia; Frank Hamilton; Henry P Parkman; Alan H Maurer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Z A Aziz; A U Wells; D M Hansell; G A Bain; S J Copley; S R Desai; S M Ellis; F V Gleeson; S Grubnic; A G Nicholson; S P G Padley; K S Pointon; J H Reynolds; R J H Robertson; M B Rubens Journal: Thorax Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Lauren H Williams; Ann J Carrigan; Megan Mills; William F Auffermann; Anina N Rich; Trafton Drew Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-07-14