Multiple-reader studies, digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and the Holy Grail of imaging physics: II

The metaphor of the Holy Grail is used here to refer to the classic and elusive problem in medical imaging of predicting the ranking of the clinical performance of competing imaging modalities from the ranking obtained from physical laboratory measurements and signal-detection analysis, or from simple phantom studies. We show how the use of the multiple-reader, multiple-case (MRMC) ROC paradigm and new analytical techniques allows this masking effect to be quantified in terms of components-of-variance models. Moreover, we demonstrate how the components of variance associated with reader variability may be reduced when readers have the benefit of computer-assist reading aids. The remaining variability will be due to the case components, and these reflect the contribution of the technology without the masking effect of the reader. This suggests that prediction of clinical ranking of imaging systems in terms of physical measurements may become a much more tractable task in a world that includes MRMC ROC analysis of performance of radiologists with the advantage of computer-assisted reading.

[1]  B. Efron The jackknife, the bootstrap, and other resampling plans , 1987 .

[2]  C E Metz,et al.  Variance-component modeling in the analysis of receiver operating characteristic index estimates. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[3]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Components-of-variance models for random-effects ROC analysis: the case of unequal variance structures across modalities. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[4]  Charles E. Metz,et al.  Implications of a ''Noisy'' observer to data processing techniques , 1976 .

[5]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Components-of-variance models and multiple-bootstrap experiments: an alternative method for random-effects, receiver operating characteristic analysis. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[6]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Analysis of components of variance in multiple-reader studies of computer-aided diagnosis with different tasks , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[7]  H L Kundel,et al.  Nodule detection with and without a chest image. , 1985, Investigative radiology.

[8]  Isaac N. Bankman,et al.  Handbook of medical imaging , 2000 .

[9]  M. Giger,et al.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[10]  Sergey V. Beiden,et al.  Multiple-reader studies, digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and the Holy Grail of imaging physics: I , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[11]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[12]  Arthur E. Burgess Bach, breasts, and power-law processes , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  R F Wagner,et al.  Analysis of uncertainties in estimates of components of variance in multivariate ROC analysis. , 2001, Academic radiology.