Three-Class ROC Analysis—The Equal Error Utility Assumption and the Optimality of Three-Class ROC Surface Using the Ideal Observer

Previously, we have developed a decision model for three-class receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on decision theory. The proposed decision model maximizes the expected decision utility under the assumption that incorrect decisions have equal utilities under the same hypothesis (equal error utility assumption). This assumption reduced the dimensionality of the "general" three-class ROC analysis and provided a practical figure-of-merit to evaluate the three-class task performance. However, it also limits the generality of the resulting model because the equal error utility assumption will not apply for all clinical three-class decision tasks. The goal of this study was to investigate the optimality of the proposed three-class decision model with respect to several other decision criteria. In particular, besides the maximum expected utility (MEU) criterion used in the previous study, we investigated the maximum-correctness (MC) (or minimum-error), maximum likelihood (ML), and Nyman-Pearson (N-P) criteria. We found that by making assumptions for both MEU and N-P criteria, all decision criteria lead to the previously-proposed three-class decision model. As a result, this model maximizes the expected utility under the equal error utility assumption, maximizes the probability of making correct decisions, satisfies the N-P criterion in the sense that it maximizes the sensitivity of one class given the sensitivities of the other two classes, and the resulting ROC surface contains the maximum likelihood decision operating point. While the proposed three-class ROC analysis model is not optimal in the general sense due to the use of the equal error utility assumption, the range of criteria for which it is optimal increases its applicability for evaluating and comparing a range of diagnostic systems

[1]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Design of three-class classifiers in computer-aided diagnosis: Monte Carlo simulation study , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  Matthew A. Kupinski,et al.  Ideal observers and optimal ROC hypersurfaces in N-class classification , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  C. Yiannoutsos,et al.  Ordered multiple‐class ROC analysis with continuous measurements , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

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

[5]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  The hypervolume under the ROC hypersurface of "Near-Guessing" and "Near-Perfect" observers in N-class classification tasks , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  M. Pepe The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction , 2003 .

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

[8]  D. Bamber The area above the ordinal dominance graph and the area below the receiver operating characteristic graph , 1975 .

[9]  Matthew A. Kupinski,et al.  Objective Assessment of Image Quality , 2005 .

[10]  W Zucchini,et al.  On the statistical analysis of ROC curves. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[12]  J. Morris,et al.  Measuring and estimating diagnostic accuracy when there are three ordinal diagnostic groups , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[14]  D. Mossman Three-way ROCs , 1999, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  Xin He,et al.  Three-class ROC analysis-a decision theoretic approach under the ideal observer framework , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  Scurfield,et al.  Generalization of the Theory of Signal Detectability to n-Event m-Dimensional Forced-Choice Tasks. , 1998, Journal of mathematical psychology.