The Importance of ROC Data

Academic Radiology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 257-258

  Samuelson, Frank ^a   Gallas, Brandon D ^a   Myers, Kyle J ^a   Petrick, Nicholas ^a   Pinsky, Paul ^a   Sahiner, Berkman ^a   Campbell, Gregory ^a   Pennello, Gene A ^a  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BREAST CANCER; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LETTER; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REIMBURSEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ROC CURVE;

EID: 78651085645     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.10.016     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Gur D., Bandos A.I., Rockette H.E., et al. Is an ROC-type response truly always better than a binary response in observer performance studies?. Acad Radiol 2010, 17:639-645.
2. Gur D., Abrams G.S., Chough D.M., et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 193:586-591.
3. Gur D., Rockette H.E., Bandos A.I. "Binary" and "non-binary" detection tasks: are current performance measures optimal?. Acad Radiol 2007, 14:871-876.
4. Gur D., Bandos A.I., Rockette H.E. Comparing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves: potential impact of the "last" experimentally measured operating point. Radiology 2008, 247:12-15.
5. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S. A contaminated binormal model for ROC data, Part II, A formal Model. Acad Radiol 2000, 7:427-437.