Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 7 , Pages 871-876, July 2007

“Binary” and “Non-Binary” Detection Tasks: Are Current Performance Measures Optimal?

  • David Gur, ScD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Suite 4200, Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3180
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: D.G.
  • ,
  • Howard E. Rockette, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
  • ,
  • Andriy I. Bandos, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Received 1 February 2007; accepted 26 March 2007.

Rationale and Objectives

We have observed that a very large fraction of responses for several detection tasks during the performance of observer studies are in the extreme ranges of lower than 11% or higher than 89% regardless of the actual presence or absence of the abnormality in question or its subjectively rated “subtleness.” This observation raises questions regarding the validity and appropriateness of using multicategory rating scales for such detection tasks. Monte Carlo simulation of binary and multicategory ratings for these tasks demonstrate that the use of the former (binary) often results in a less biased and more precise summary index and hence may lead to a higher statistical power for determining differences between modalities.

Key Words: Observer performance, ROC, binary decisions

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported in part by Grants EB001694, EB002106, and EB003503 (to the University of Pittsburgh) from the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), National Institute of Health.

PII: S1076-6332(07)00179-1

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2007.03.014

Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 7 , Pages 871-876, July 2007