On the choice of acceptance radius in free-response observer performance studies.

OBJECTIVES Choosing an acceptance radius or proximity criterion is necessary to analyse free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) observer performance data. This is currently subjective, with little guidance in the literature about what is an appropriate acceptance radius. We evaluated varying acceptance radii in a nodule detection task in chest radiography and suggest guidelines for determining an acceptance radius. METHODS 80 chest radiographs were chosen, half of which contained nodules. We determined each nodule's centre. 21 radiologists read the images. We created acceptance radii bins of <5 pixels, <10 pixels, <20 pixels and onwards up to <200 and 200+ pixels. We counted lesion localisations in each bin and visually compared marks with the borders of nodules. RESULTS Most reader marks were tightly clustered around nodule centres, with tighter clustering for smaller than for larger nodules. At least 70% of readers' marks were placed within <10 pixels for small nodules, <20 pixels for medium nodules and <30 pixels for large nodules. Of 72 inspected marks that were less than 50 pixels from the centre of a nodule, only 1 fell outside the border of a nodule. CONCLUSION The acceptance radius should be based on the larger nodule sizes. For our data, an acceptance radius of 50 pixels would have captured all but 2 reader marks within the borders of a nodule, while excluding only 1 true-positive mark. The choice of an acceptance radius for FROC analysis of observer performance studies should be based on the size of larger abnormalities.

[1]  Laurie L Fajardo,et al.  Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms. , 2005, Radiology.

[2]  D. Chakraborty New developments in observer performance methodology in medical imaging. , 2011, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[3]  P. Fitts,et al.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  C. Metz Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[5]  Claudia Mello-Thoms,et al.  Spatial localization accuracy of radiologists in free-response studies: Inferring perceptual FROC curves from mark-rating data. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[6]  Harold L. Kundel Peripheral vision, structured noise and film reader error. , 1975 .

[7]  Claudia Mello-Thoms,et al.  The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography? , 2002, Academic radiology.

[8]  H L Kundel,et al.  Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images. , 1972, Radiology.

[9]  Jules Sumkin,et al.  Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[10]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[11]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[12]  D. P. Chakraborty,et al.  A status report on free-response analysis. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[13]  M Kallergi,et al.  Evaluating the performance of detection algorithms in digital mammography. , 1999, Medical physics.

[14]  M. Zalis,et al.  Importance and effects of altered workplace ergonomics in modern radiology suites. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[15]  Gene Gindi,et al.  The efficiency of the human observer for lesion detection and localization in emission tomography. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  Charles E Metz,et al.  ROC analysis in medical imaging: a tutorial review of the literature , 2008, Radiological physics and technology.

[17]  Charles E Metz,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.