Observer performance studies: Detection of single versus multiple abnormalities of the chest

被引:11
作者
Fuhrman, CR
Britton, CA
Bender, T
Sumkin, JH
Brown, ML
Holbert, JM
Chang, TS
Rockette, HE
Gur, D
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Radiol, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[2] Henry Ford Hosp, Dept Radiol, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
[3] Scott & White Mem Hosp & Clin, Dept Radiol, Temple, TX 76508 USA
[4] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Biostat, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791551
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
OBJECTIVE. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to compare two methods of evaluating observer performance in detecting an abnormality on chest radiographs. In the first method, the abnormality in question, rib fracture, was one of five investigated, and it was the only one of interest in the second. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Eight experienced observers viewed 117 posteroanterior chest radiographs in two interpretation modes. Fifty-four of these images depicted rib fractures that had been rated as subtle for detection. The likelihood of the presence of a rib fracture was rated as one of five abnormalities in question in one mode and the sole abnormality of interest in the other mode. RESULTS. Six of the observers performed better during the single-abnormality mode, one performed equally well in both modes, and one performed better during the multiple-abnormality mode. The average area under the ROC curves (A(Z)) was 0.73 +/- 0.07 for the multiple-abnormality mode and 0.80 +/- 0.04 for the single-abnormality mode. The results were significantly different (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION. Study methodology can significantly affect the results in ROC studies, particularly for abnormalities that may not be perceived as primary or important. The order in which abnormalities appear on a checklist report form may be important.
引用
收藏
页码:1551 / 1553
页数:3
相关论文
共 7 条
[1]   RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC RATING ANALYSIS - GENERALIZATION TO THE POPULATION OF READERS AND PATIENTS WITH THE JACKKNIFE METHOD [J].
DORFMAN, DD ;
BERBAUM, KS ;
METZ, CE .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1992, 27 (09) :723-731
[2]   Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs [J].
Herron, JM ;
Bender, TM ;
Campbell, WL ;
Sumkin, JH ;
Rockette, HE ;
Gur, D .
RADIOLOGY, 2000, 215 (01) :169-174
[3]  
Metz CE, 1998, STAT MED, V17, P1033, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980515)17:9<1033::AID-SIM784>3.0.CO
[4]  
2-Z
[5]   EFFECT OF 2 RATING FORMATS IN MULTIDISEASE ROC STUDY OF CHEST IMAGES [J].
ROCKETTE, HE ;
GUR, D ;
COOPERSTEIN, LA ;
OBUCHOWSKI, NA ;
KING, JL ;
FUHRMAN, CR ;
TABOR, EK ;
METZ, CE .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1990, 25 (03) :225-229
[6]   RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC ANALYSIS OF CHEST IMAGE INTERPRETATION WITH CONVENTIONAL, LASER-PRINTED, AND HIGH-RESOLUTION WORKSTATION IMAGES [J].
SLASKY, BS ;
GUR, D ;
GOOD, WF ;
COSTAGRECO, MA ;
HARRIS, KM ;
COOPERSTEIN, LA ;
ROCKETTE, HE .
RADIOLOGY, 1990, 174 (03) :775-780
[7]   DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY AND CONVENTIONAL IMAGING OF THE CHEST - A COMPARISON OF OBSERVER PERFORMANCE [J].
THAETE, FL ;
FUHRMAN, CR ;
OLIVER, JH ;
BRITTON, CA ;
CAMPBELL, WI ;
FEIST, JH ;
STRAUB, WH ;
DAVIS, PL ;
PLUNKETT, MB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1994, 162 (03) :575-581