IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i1p113-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Equivalent Relative Utility Metric for Evaluating Screening Mammography

Author

Listed:
  • Craig K. Abbey

    (Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, abbey@psych.ucsb.edu, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA)

  • Miguel P. Eckstein

    (Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA)

  • John M. Boone

    (Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, Department of Radiology, UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA)

Abstract

Comparative studies of performance in screening mammography are often ambiguous. A new method will frequently show a higher sensitivity or detection rate than an existing standard with a concomitant increase in false positives or recalls. The authors propose an equivalent relative utility (ERU) metric based on signal detection theory to quantify screening performance in such comparisons. The metric is defined as the relative utility, as defined in classical signal detection theory, needed to make 2 systems equivalent. ERU avoids the problem of requiring a predefined putative relative utility, which has limited application of utility theory in receiver operating characteristic analysis. The metric can be readily estimated from recall and detection rates commonly reported in comparative clinical studies. An important practical advantage of ERU is that in prevalence matched populations, the measure can be estimated without an independent estimate of disease prevalence. Thus estimating ERU does not require a study with long-term follow-up to find cases of missed disease. The approach is applicable to any comparative screening study that reports results in terms of recall and detection rates, although the authors focus exclusively on screening mammography in this work. They derive the ERU from the definition of utility given in classical treatments of signal detection theory. They also investigate reasonable values of relative utility in screening mammography for use in interpreting ERU using data from a large clinical study. As examples of application of ERU, they reanalyze 2 recently published reports using recall and detection rates in screening mammography.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig K. Abbey & Miguel P. Eckstein & John M. Boone, 2010. "An Equivalent Relative Utility Metric for Evaluating Screening Mammography," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 113-122, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:113-122
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09341753
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09341753?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:1:p:113-122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.