Statistical Approaches for Modeling Radiologists' Interpretive Performance

Academic Radiology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 227-238

  Miglioretti, Diana L ^a,b   Haneuse, Sebastien J P A ^a,b   Anderson, Melissa L ^a  

^a CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Clustered data analysis; generalized estimating equations; generalized linear mixed models; hierarchical; interpretive volume; mammography performance; random effect

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CONSENSUS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SAMPLE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSICIANS; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WASHINGTON;

EID: 58049206394     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.07.022     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, Pub L No 102-539, as amended by Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 1998, Pub L No 105-248.
2. Institute of Medicine. Breast imaging quality standards (2005), National Academies Press, Washington, DC
3. Elmore J.G., Miglioretti D.L., Reisch L.M., et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (2002) 1373-1380
4. Barlow W.E., Chi C., Carney P.A., et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (2004) 1840-1850
5. Smith-Bindman R., Chu P., Miglioretti D.L., et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (2005) 358-367
6. Miglioretti D.L., Smith-Bindman R., Abraham L., et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (2007) 1854-1863
7. Taplin S., Abraham L., Barlow W.E., et al. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 100 (2008) 876-887
8. Miglioretti D.L., and Heagerty P.J. Marginal modeling of nonnested multilevel data using standard software. Am J Epidemiol 165 (2007) 453-463
9. Theberge I., Hebert-Croteau N., Langlois A., Major D., and Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. CMAJ 172 (2005) 195-199
10. Kan L., Olivotto I.A., Warren Burhenne L.J., Sickles E.A., and Coldman A.J. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 215 (2000) 563-567
11. Coldman A.J., Major D., Doyle G.P., et al. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Radiology 238 (2006) 809-815
12. Rickard M., Taylor R., Page A., and Estoesta J. Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme. Breast 15 (2006) 39-43
13. Ballard-Barbash R., Taplin S.H., Yankaskas B.C., et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169 (1997) 1001-1008
14. Carney P.A., Geller B.M., Moffett H., et al. Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs. Am J Epidemiol 152 (2000) 371-378
15. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas) (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
16. Neuhaus J.M., and Kalbfleisch J.D. Between- and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data. Biometrics 54 (1998) 638-645
17. Rosenberg R.D., Yankaskas B.C., Abraham L.A., et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 241 (2006) 55-66
18. Sickles E.A., Miglioretti D.L., Ballard-Barbash R., et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 235 (2005) 775-790
19. Diggle P.J., Heagerty P., Liang K.Y., and Zeger S.L. Analysis of longitudinal data (2002), Oxford University Press, New York
20. Zeger S.L., Liang K.Y., and Albert P.S. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 44 (1988) 1049-1060
21. Neuhaus J.M., Kalbfleisch J.D., and Hauck W.W. A comparison of cluster-specific and population-averaged approaches for analyzing correlated binary data. Int Stat Rev 59 (1991) 25-35
22. McCullagh P., and Nelder J.A. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed. (1989), Chapman & Hall, London
23. Breslow N.E., and Day N.E. Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol 1: the analysis of case-control studies (1980), International Agency for Research on Cancer, London 5-338
24. Obuchowski N.A., Beiden S.V., Berbaum K.S., et al. Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods. Acad Radiol 11 (2004) 980-995
25. Liang K.Y., and Zeger S.L. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73 (1986) 13-22
26. Miglioretti D.L., and Heagerty P.J. Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time varying covariates. Biostatistics 5 (2004) 381-398
27. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S., and Metz C.E. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27 (1992) 723-731
28. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S., Lenth R.V., Chen Y.F., and Donaghy B.A. Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 5 (1998) 591-602
29. Obuchowski N.A., and Rockette H.E. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Commun Stat Simul 24 (1995) 185-308
30. Obuchowski N.A. Rejoinder. Acad Radiol 2 suppl (1995) S79-S80
31. Obuchowski N.A. Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. Acad Radiol 2 suppl (1995) S22-S29
32. Song X., and Zhou X.H. A marginal model approach for analysis of multi-reader multi-test receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Biostatistics 6 (2005) 303-312
33. Wang Z., and Louis T.A. Matching conditional and marginal shapes in binary random intercept models using a bridge distribution function. Biometrika 90 (2003) 765-775
34. Wang Z., and Louis T.A. Marginalized binary mixed-effects models with covariate-dependent random effects and likelihood inference. Biometrics 60 (2004) 884-891
35. Emrich L.J., and Piedmonte M.R. On some small sample properties of generalized estimating equation estimates for multivariate dichotomous outcomes. J Stat Comput Simul 41 (1992) 19-29
36. Mancl L.A., and DeRouen T.A. A covariance estimator for GEE with improved small-sample properties. Biometrics 57 (2001) 126-134
37. Hardin J. Stata's implementation of GEE. http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/stat/gee.html Accessed August 14, 2008.
38. Hoffman E.B., Sen P.K., and Weinberg C.R. Within-cluster resampling. Biometrika 88 (2001) 1121-1134
39. Williamson J.M., Datta S., and Satten G.A. Marginal analyses of clustered data when cluster size is informative. Biometrics 59 (2003) 36-42
40. Neuhaus J.M., and McCulloch C.E. Separating between- and within-cluster covariate effects by using conditional and partitioning methods. J R Statist Soc B 68 (2006) 859-872
41. Heagerty P.J., and Kurland B.F. Misspecified maximum likelihood estimates and generalised linear mixed models. Biometrika 88 (2001) 973-985
42. Little J.A., and Rubin D.B. Statistical analysis with missing data (1987), John Wiley, New York
43. Laird N.M. Missing data in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 7 (1988) 305-315
44. Robins J., Rotnitzky A., and Zhao L.P. Analysis of semi-parametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data. J Am Stat Assoc 90 (1995) 106-121
45. Rathouz P. Fixed effects models for longitudinal binary data with drop-outs missing at random. Statistica Sinica 14 (2004) 969-988
46. Greenland S., Pearl J., and Robins J.M. Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci 14 (1999) 29-46
47. Sickles E.A., Wolverton D.E., and Dee K.E. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 224 (2002) 861-869
48. Leung J.W., Margolin F.R., Dee K.E., et al. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188 (2007) 236-241
49. Heagerty P.J. Marginally specified logistic-normal models for longitudinal binary data. Biometrics 55 (1999) 688-698
50. Heagerty P.J., and Zeger S.L. Marginalized multilevel models and likelihood inference. Stat Sci 15 (2000) 1-26