Three methods for analysing correlated ROC curves: A comparison in real data sets from multi-reader, multi-case studies with a factorial design

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 22, Issue 18, 2003, Pages 2919-2933

  Toledano, Alicia Y ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Generalized estimating equations; Ordinal categorical data; ROC curve; Summary statistic

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ORDINATION ANALYSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 0141514392     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.1518     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Dorfman DD, Alf E. Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals. Rating method data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1969; 6:487-496.
2. Jiang Y, Metz CE, Nishikawa RM. A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. Radioloyy 1996; 201:745-750.
3. McClish DK. Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Medical Decision Making 1989; 9:190-195.
4. Toledano A, Gatsonis C. Regression analysis of correlated receiver operating characteristic data. Academic Radiology 1995; 2:S14-S21.
5. Toledano AY, Gatsonis C. Ordinal regression methodology for ROC curves derived from correlated data. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15:1807-1826.
6. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. ROC rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and cases with the jackknife method. Investigative Radiology 1992; 27:723-731.
7. Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Communications in Statistics, Part B: Simulation and Computation 1995; 24:285-308.
8. Obuchowski NA. Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. Academic Radioloyy 1995; 2:S22-S29.
9. Beam CA. Random-effects models in the receiver operating characteristic curve-based assessment of the effectiveness of diagnostic imaging technology: concepts, approaches, and issues. Academic Radiology 1995; 2:S4-S13.
10. Tosteson ANA, Begg CB. A general regression methodology for ROC curve estimation. Medical Decision Making 1988; 8:204-215.
11. McCullagh P. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1980; 42:109-142.
12. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73:13-22.
13. Metz CE, Wang P, Kronman HB. A new approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In Information Processing in Medical Imaging. Martinus Nijhoff: The Hague, 1984; 432-445.
14. Hinkley D. Jackknife methods. In Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Volume 4: Icing the Tails to Limit Theorems. Wiley: New York, 1983; 280-287.
15. Thompson ML, Zucchini W. On the statistical analysis of ROC curves. Statistics in Medicine 1989; 8: 1277-1290.
16. Zerhouni EA, Rutter C, Hamilton SR, Balfe DM, Megibow AJ, Francis IR, Moss AA, Heiken JP, Tempany CMC, Aisen AA, Weinreb JC, Gatsonis C, McNeil BJ. CT and MR imaging in the staging of colorectal carcinoma: report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group II. Radiology 1996; 200:443-451.
17. McNeil BJ, Hanley JA, Funkenstein HH, Wallman J. The use of paired ROC curves in studying the impact of history on radiographic interpretation: CT of the head as a case study. Radiology 1983; 149:75-77.
18. Franken EA, Berbaum KS, Marley SM, Smith WL, Sato Y, Kao SC, Milam SG. Evaluation of a digital workstation for interpreting neonatal examinations: a receiver operating characteristic study. Investigative Radiology 1992; 27:732-737.
19. Krupinski EA. Clinical assessment of dry laser-processed film versus traditional wet-processed film with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. Academic Radiology 1996; 3:855-858.
20. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search. Academic Radiology 2000; 7:8-13.
21. Toledano AY, Gatsonis C. Missing data in receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Biometrics 1999; 55:488-496.
22. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV. Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic methodology: a bootstrap analysis. Academic Radiology 1995; 2:626-633.
23. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen Y-F, Donaghy BA. Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Academic Radiology 1998; 5:591-602.
24. Lipsitz SR, Fitzmaurice GM, Orav EJ, Laird NM. Performance of generalized estimating equations in practical situations. Biometrics 1994; 50:270-278.