An equivalent relative utility metric for evaluating screening mammography

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 113-122

  Abbey, Craig K ^a,b   Eckstein, Miguel P ^a   Boone, John M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of California Davis   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision Theory; Relative utility; ROC analysis; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; DECISION THEORY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD;

ALGORITHMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION THEORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL;

EID: 75949089860     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341753     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M., Chan BK, Woolf SH Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002 ; 137 (5 Part 1). 347-360. (Pubitemid 34977137)
2. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG Clinical practice: mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003 ; 348: 1672-1680.
3. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L., et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005 ; 353: 1784-1792.
4. Green DM, Swets JA Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: John Wiley & Sons ; 1966.
5. Swets JA, Pickett RM Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection Theory. New York: Academic ; 1982.
6. Metz CE Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 1978 ; 8: 283-298.
7. Somoza E., Soutullo-Esperon L., Mossman D. Evaluation and optimization of diagnostic tests using receiver operating characteristic analysis and information theory. Int J Biomed Comput. 1989 ; 24: 153.
8. Halpern EJ, Alpert M., Krieger AM, Metz CE, Maidment AD Comparisons of ROC curves on the basis of optimal operating points. Acad Radiol. 1996 ; 3: 245-253.
9. Edwards DC, Metz CE A utility-based performance metric for ROC analysis of N-class classification tasks. Proc SPIE 2007 ; 6515-03: 1-10.
10. Edwards DC, Metz CE, Optimality of a utility-based performance metric for ROC analysis. Proc SPIE 2008 ; 6917-13: 1-10.
11. Metz CE ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature. Radiol Phys Technol. 2008 ; 1: 2-12.
12. Wagner RF, Beam CA, Beiden SV Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 561-572.
13. Barlow WE, Chi C., Carney PA, Taplin SH, DOrsi C., Cutter G., et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 ; 96: 1840-1850. (Pubitemid 40081321)
14. Hambly N., Phelan N., Hargaden G., ODoherty A., Flanagan F. Impact of digital mammography in breast cancer screening: initial experience in a national breast screening program. In: Krupinski EA, ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5116. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2008.
15. Gur D., Sumkin JH, Hardesty LA, Clearfield RJ, Cohen CS, Ganott MA, et al. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography. Cancer. 2004 ; 100: 1590-1594.
16. Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen J. -H. Maximum-likelihood estimation of ROC curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med. 1998 ; 17: 1033.
17. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston (VA): American College of Radiology ; 2003.
18. Gelman A., Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB Bayesian Data Analysis. New York: Chapman & Hall ; 1995.
19. Johnson NL, Kotz S. Distributions in Statistics: Continuous Multivariate Distributions. Vol. 4. New York: Wiley ; 1972.