Keywords:
Performed at one institution, Not applicable, Retrospective, Tissue characterisation, Quality assurance, Cancer, Physics, Observer performance, Comparative studies, Mammography, Image manipulation / Reconstruction, Digital radiography, Radiation physics, Oncology, Breast
Authors:
C. Van Ongeval1, L. Cockmartin2, S. Postema2, R. Prevos2, M. Keupers2, T. Thywissen2, G. Zhang2, H. Bosmans2; 1Leuven/BE , 2Leuven/BE
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-07603
References
1 Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investigative Radiology 1992; 27:723-731.
2 Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an ANOVA approach with dependent observations. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation 1995; 24:285-308.
3 Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS. A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette Methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24:1579-1607.
4 Hillis SL. A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2007; 26:596-619.
5 Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Academic Radiology 2008; 15:647-661
6 Båth M and Månsson LG. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br. J. Radiol. 2007;80(951):169-176
