Counterpoint to "Performance Assessment of Diagnostic Systems Under the FROC Paradigm" by Gur and Rockette

Academic Radiology

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 507-510

  Chakraborty, Dev P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROC CURVE;

EID: 61449084485     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.12.011     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. Gur D., and Rockette H.E. Performance assessment of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues. Acad Radiol 15 (2008) 1312-1315
2. Bunch P.C., Hamilton J.F., and Sanderson G.K. A free-response approach to the measurement and characterization of radiographic-observer performance. J Appl Photogr Eng 4 (1978) 166-171
3. Swensson R.G. Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. Med Phys 23 (1996) 1709-1725
4. Obuchowski N.A., Lieber M.L., and Powell K.A. Data analysis for detection and localization of multiple abnormalities with application to mammography. Acad Radiol 7 (2000) 516-525
5. Chakraborty D.P., and Berbaum K.S. Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis and validation. Med Phys 31 (2004) 2313-2330
6. Fryback D.G., and Thornbury J.R. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 11 (1991) 88-94
7. Receiver operating characteristic analysis in medical imaging. ICRU Report 79. J Int Comm Radiat Units Measure (2008) 8
8. Fenton J.J., Taplin S.H., Carney P.A., et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 356 (2007) 1399-1409
9. Astley S.M., and Gilbert F.J. Computer-aided detection in mammography. Clin Radiol 59 (2004) 390-399
10. Black W.C., and Dwyer A.J. Local versus global measures of accuracy: an important distinction for diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 10 (1990) 266-273
11. Song T., Bandos A.I., Rockette H.E., and Gur D. On comparing methods for discriminating between actually negative and actually positive subjects with FROC type data. Med Phys 35 (2008) 1547-1558
12. Bandos AI, Rockette HE, Song T, Gur D. Area under the free-response ROC curve (FROC) and a related summary index. Biometrics. In press.
13. Wagner R.F., Metz C.E., and Campbell G. Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. Acad Radiol 14 (2007) 723-748
14. Chakraborty D.P. Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol 15 (2008) 1554-1566
15. Dodd L.E., Wagner R.F., Armato III S.G., et al. Assessment methodologies and statistical issues for computer-aided diagnosis of lung nodules in computed tomography: contemporary research topics relevant to the lung image database consortium. Acad Radiol 11 (2004) 462-475
16. Neisser U. Cognitive psychology (1967), Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York
17. Chakraborty D.P. A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm. Phys Med Biol 51 (2006) 3449-3462
18. Rutter C.M. Bootstrap estimation of diagnostic accuracy with patient-clustered data. Acad Radiol 7 (2000) 413-419