Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis
被引:173
作者:
Hillis, Stephen L.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Iowa, CRIISP, Iowa City VA Med Ctr 152, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
Univ Iowa, Dept Biostat, Iowa City, IA USAUniv Iowa, CRIISP, Iowa City VA Med Ctr 152, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
Hillis, Stephen L.
[1
,2
]
Berbaum, Kevin S.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Iowa, Dept Radiol, Iowa City, IA 52242 USAUniv Iowa, CRIISP, Iowa City VA Med Ctr 152, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
Berbaum, Kevin S.
[3
]
Metz, Charles E.
论文数: 0引用数: 0
h-index: 0
机构:
Univ Chicago, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Chicago, IL 60637 USAUniv Iowa, CRIISP, Iowa City VA Med Ctr 152, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
Metz, Charles E.
[4
]
机构:
[1] Univ Iowa, CRIISP, Iowa City VA Med Ctr 152, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[2] Univ Iowa, Dept Biostat, Iowa City, IA USA
[3] Univ Iowa, Dept Radiol, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[4] Univ Chicago, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve;
DBM;
diagnostic radiology;
jackknife;
area under the curve (AUC);
D O I:
10.1016/j.acra.2007.12.015
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:
Rationale and objectives. The Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz (DBM) method has been one of the most popular methods for analyzing multireader receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) studies since it was proposed in 1992. Despite its popularity, the original procedure has several drawbacks: it is limited to jackknife accuracy estimates, it is substantially conservative, and it is not based on a satisfactory conceptual or theoretical model. Recently, solutions to these problems have been presented in three papers. Our purpose is to summarize and provide an overview of these recent developments. Materials and Methods. We present and discuss the recently proposed solutions for the various drawbacks of the original DBM method. Results. We compare the solutions in a simulation study and find that they result in improved performance for the DBM procedure. We also compare the solutions using two real data studies and find that the modified DBM procedure that incorporates these solutions yields more significant results and clearer interpretations of the variance component parameters than the original DBM procedure. Conclusions. We recommend using the modified DBM procedure that incorporates the recent developments.