On the comparison of FROC curves in mammography CAD systems

被引:33
作者
Bornefalk, H [1 ]
Hermansson, AB
机构
[1] KTH, Dept Phys, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Uppsala Univ, Div Stat, Dept Informat Sci, Uppsala, Sweden
关键词
FROC; confidence interval; mammography; CAD; bootstrap; sampling error; system threshold estimation;
D O I
10.1118/1.1844433
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
We present a novel method for assessing the performance of computer-aided detection systems on unseen cases at a given sensitivity level. The sampling error introduced when training the system on a limited data set is captured as the uncertainty in determining the system threshold that would yield a certain predetermined sensitivity on unseen data sets. By estimating the distribution of system thresholds, we construct a confidence interval for the expected number of false positive markings per image at a given sensitivity. We present two alternative procedures for estimating the probability density functions needed for the construction of the confidence interval. The first is based on the common assumption of Poisson distributed number of false positive markings per image. This procedure also relies on the assumption of independence between false positives and sensitivity, an assumption that can be relaxed with the second procedure, which is nonparametric. The second procedure uses the bootstrap applied to the data generated in the leave-one-out construction of the FROC curve, and is a fast and robust way of obtaining the desired confidence interval. Standard FROC curve analysis does not account for the uncertainty in setting the system threshold, so this method should allow for a more fair comparison of different systems. The resulting confidence intervals are surprisingly wide. For our system a conventional FROC curve analysis yields 0.47 false positive markings per image at 90% sensitivity. The 90% confidence interval for the number of false positive markings per image is (0.28, 1.02) with the parametric procedure and (0.27, 1.04) with the nonparametric bootstrap. Due to its computational simplicity and its allowing more fair comparisons between systems, we propose this method as a complement to the traditionally presented FROC curves. (C) 2005 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:412 / 417
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   Use of phase and certainty information in automatic detection of stellate patterns in mammograms [J].
Bornefalk, H .
MEDICAL IMAGING 2004: IMAGE PROCESSING, PTS 1-3, 2004, 5370 :97-107
[2]   Maximum likelihood fitting of FROC curves under an initial-detection-and-candidate-analysis model [J].
Edwards, DC ;
Kupinski, MA ;
Metz, CE ;
Nishikawa, RM .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (12) :2861-2870
[3]   1977 RIETZ LECTURE - BOOTSTRAP METHODS - ANOTHER LOOK AT THE JACKKNIFE [J].
EFRON, B .
ANNALS OF STATISTICS, 1979, 7 (01) :1-26
[4]  
Efron B., 1994, INTRO BOOTSTRAP, DOI DOI 10.1201/9780429246593
[5]  
GAWLEY GC, 2000, MATLAB SUPPORT VECTO
[6]  
Giger ML, 1996, INT CONGR SER, V1119, P53
[7]  
Heath M, 1998, COMP IMAG VIS, V13, P457
[8]   Detection of stellate distortions in mammograms [J].
Karssemeijer, N ;
teBrake, GM .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, 1996, 15 (05) :611-619
[9]   Analysis of methods for reducing false positives in the automated detection of clustered microcalcifications in mammograms [J].
Nagel, RH ;
Nishikawa, RM ;
Papaioannou, J ;
Doi, K .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1998, 25 (08) :1502-1506
[10]   Variations in measured performance of CAD schemes due to database composition and scoring protocol [J].
Nishikawa, RM ;
Yarusso, LM .
MEDICAL IMAGING 1998: IMAGE PROCESSING, PTS 1 AND 2, 1998, 3338 :840-844