Translator Disclaimer
23 February 2010 Measuring modality ordering consistency of observer performance paradigms
Author Affiliations +
Two observer performance paradigms applied to the same modalities, readers and cases are said to order the modalities consistently if both confirm the same sign (positive or negative) of the figure of merit difference. The aim of this work was to develop a modality ordering consistency measure. The paradigms considered were receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jackknife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC). Clinical FROC data from a previous study was used. Using the highest rating method ROC ratings were inferred from FROC ratings. JAFROC analyses of the FROC data and Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz multiple-reader multiple-case (DBM-MRMC) analysis of the inferred ROC data showed significant and consistent differences in the two figures of merit. Additionally 2000 bootstrap data sets were sampled and analyzed by JAFROC and DBM-MRMC. It was found that a positive JAFROC figure of merit difference was 101 times more likely when the ROC difference was positive than when the ROC difference was negative (odds ratio = 101). Valid modality ordering consistency (or inconsistency) claims are possible only when both figures of merit differences are statistically significant. For those bootstraps where both JAFROC and ROC yielded significant differences there were no inconsistent orderings. The effect of artificially degrading JAFROC performance was investigated. It was found that the odds ratio was more sensitive to the degradation. The results in this work are likely to be optimistic. A more realistic test of modality ordering consistency would require two separate studies (FROC and ROC) using the same readers and cases.
© (2010) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
D. P. Chakraborty and Federica Zanca "Measuring modality ordering consistency of observer performance paradigms", Proc. SPIE 7627, Medical Imaging 2010: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 762711 (23 February 2010);

Back to Top