IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/compst/v38y2023i3d10.1007_s00180-022-01309-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the diagnostic performance of methods used in a full-factorial design multi-reader multi-case studies

Author

Listed:
  • Merve Basol

    (Erciyes University)

  • Dincer Goksuluk

    (Erciyes University)

  • Ergun Karaagaoglu

    (Hacettepe University)

Abstract

In radiology, patients are frequently diagnosed according to the subjective interpretations of radiologists based on an image. Such diagnosis results may be biased and significantly differ among evaluators (i.e., readers) due to different education levels and experiences. One solution to overcome this problem is to use a multi-reader multi-case study design in which there are multiple readers, and the same images are evaluated multiple times. Several methods, including model-based and bootstrap-based, are available for analyzing the multi-reader multi-case studies. In this study, we aimed to compare the performance of available methods on a mammogram dataset. We also conducted a comprehensive simulation study to generalize the results to more general scenarios. We considered the effect of the number of samples and readers, data structures (i.e., correlation structures and variance components), and overall accuracy of diagnostic tests (AUC) in the simulation set-up. Results showed that the model-based methods had type-I error rates close to the nominal level as the number of samples and readers increased. Bootstrap-based methods, on the other hand, were generally conservative. However, they performed the best when the sample size was small, and the AUC level was high. In conclusion, the performance of the proposed methods was not the same under all conditions and was affected by the factors we considered in the simulation study. Therefore, it is not a perfect strategy to use one method under all scenarios because it may lead to biased conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Merve Basol & Dincer Goksuluk & Ergun Karaagaoglu, 2023. "Comparing the diagnostic performance of methods used in a full-factorial design multi-reader multi-case studies," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 1537-1553, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:compst:v:38:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s00180-022-01309-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s00180-022-01309-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00180-022-01309-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00180-022-01309-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori E. Dodd & Margaret S. Pepe, 2003. "Partial AUC Estimation and Regression," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 614-623, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peterson, A. Townsend & Papeş, Monica & Soberón, Jorge, 2008. "Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 63-72.
    2. Margaret Sullivan Pepe & Tianxi Cai, 2004. "The Analysis of Placement Values for Evaluating Discriminatory Measures," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 528-535, June.
    3. Man-Jen Hsu & Huey-Miin Hsueh, 2013. "The linear combinations of biomarkers which maximize the partial area under the ROC curves," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 647-666, April.
    4. Soutik Ghosal & Zhen Chen, 2022. "Discriminatory Capacity of Prenatal Ultrasound Measures for Large-for-Gestational-Age Birth: A Bayesian Approach to ROC Analysis Using Placement Values," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Holly Janes & Gary Longton & Margaret S. Pepe, 2009. "Accommodating covariates in receiver operating characteristic analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(1), pages 17-39, March.
    6. Gigliarano, Chiara & Figini, Silvia & Muliere, Pietro, 2014. "Making classifier performance comparisons when ROC curves intersect," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 300-312.
    7. Yu, Wenbao & Park, Taesung, 2015. "Two simple algorithms on linear combination of multiple biomarkers to maximize partial area under the ROC curve," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 15-27.
    8. Yousef, Waleed A., 2013. "Assessing classifiers in terms of the partial area under the ROC curve," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 51-70.
    9. Margaret S. Pepe & Gary Longton & Holly Janes, 2009. "Estimation and comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Pardo-Fernandez, Juan Carlos & Rodriguez-alvarez, Maria Xose & Van Keilegom, Ingrid, 2013. "A review on ROC curves in the presence of covariates," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2013050, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    11. Mei-Cheng Wang & Shanshan Li, 2012. "Bivariate Marker Measurements and ROC Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1207-1218, December.
    12. Eunhee Kim & Zheng Zhang & Youdan Wang & Donglin Zeng, 2014. "Power calculation for comparing diagnostic accuracies in a multi-reader, multi-test design," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1033-1041, December.
    13. Jialiang Li & Jason P. Fine, 2010. "Weighted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and its application to gene selection," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(4), pages 673-692, August.
    14. Gunther Glehr & Paloma Riquelme & Katharina Kronenberg & Robert Lohmayer & Víctor J. López-Madrona & Michael Kapinsky & Hans J. Schlitt & Edward K. Geissler & Rainer Spang & Sebastian Haferkamp & Jame, 2024. "Restricting datasets to classifiable samples augments discovery of immune disease biomarkers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Tianxi Cai & Yingye Zheng, 2007. "Model Checking for ROC Regression Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(1), pages 152-163, March.
    16. Schmid Matthias & Hothorn Torsten & Krause Friedemann & Rabe Christina, 2012. "A PAUC-based Estimation Technique for Disease Classification and Biomarker Selection," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, October.
    17. Siyan Liu & Qinglong Tian & Yukun Liu & Pengfei Li, 2024. "Joint Statistical Inference for the Area under the ROC Curve and Youden Index under a Density Ratio Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-21, July.
    18. Sergio Picart-Armada & Steven J Barrett & David R Willé & Alexandre Perera-Lluna & Alex Gutteridge & Benoit H Dessailly, 2019. "Benchmarking network propagation methods for disease gene identification," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Xiao Song & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2004. "A Marginal Model Approach for Analysis of Multi-reader Multi-test Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Data," UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series 1067, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    20. Thomas Mumuni Bilintoh & Robert Gilmore Pontius & Zhen Liu, 2024. "Analyzing the Losses and Gains of a Land Category: Insights from the Total Operating Characteristic," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, July.

    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:spr:compst:v:38:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s00180-022-01309-1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.