
Proceedings Paper
Methods of evaluating the effectiveness of double-checking in interpreting mass screening imagesFormat | Member Price | Non-Member Price |
---|---|---|
$17.00 | $21.00 |
Paper Abstract
In this paper we present two methods of evaluating the effectiveness of double check (by two radiologists or by a CAD system and a radiologist): One method uses ROC analysis and the other uses the phi correlation coefficient (φ). We used the first method to evaluate the effectiveness of two radiologists conducting double check through discussion (i.e. the radiologists confer; conference system). We used the second method to evaluate the effectiveness of double check in which Reader 2 makes a final assessment by referring to the assessment of Reader 1 (reference system). It is suggested that double check conducted by two radiologists through discussion may not be so effective; however, double check in which Reader 2 makes a final assessment by referring to the assessment or Reader 1 may be very effective. In addition, we discuss problems that may occur in relation to Reader 2 deciding whether to adopt the assessment of Reader 1, and practical models of double check by a CAD system and a radiologist. Continued research is necessary to establish a double check system that improves diagnostic accuracy in practical situations, i.e. it is unknown if assessments are correct.
Paper Details
Date Published: 4 May 2004
PDF: 13 pages
Proc. SPIE 5372, Medical Imaging 2004: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, (4 May 2004); doi: 10.1117/12.536304
Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 5372:
Medical Imaging 2004: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Dev P. Chakraborty; Miguel P. Eckstein, Editor(s)
PDF: 13 pages
Proc. SPIE 5372, Medical Imaging 2004: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, (4 May 2004); doi: 10.1117/12.536304
Show Author Affiliations
Tohru Matsumoto, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Japan)
Akira Furukawa, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Japan)
Kikuo Machida, Saitama Medical School (Japan)
Norinari Honda, Saitama Medical School (Japan)
Tomoho Maeda, Kyoto Prefectural Institute of Hygienic and Environmental Sciences (Japan)
Mitsuomi Matsumoto, Tokyo Metropolitan Univ. of Health Sciences (Japan)
Akira Furukawa, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Japan)
Kikuo Machida, Saitama Medical School (Japan)
Norinari Honda, Saitama Medical School (Japan)
Tomoho Maeda, Kyoto Prefectural Institute of Hygienic and Environmental Sciences (Japan)
Mitsuomi Matsumoto, Tokyo Metropolitan Univ. of Health Sciences (Japan)
Yuichi Fujino, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (Japan)
Shinichi Wada, Niigata Univ. (Japan)
Shusuke Sone, JA Azumi General Hospital (Japan)
Kiminori Suzuki, Chiba Foundation for Health Promotion & Disease Prevention (Japan)
Masahiro Endo, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Japan)
Shinichi Wada, Niigata Univ. (Japan)
Shusuke Sone, JA Azumi General Hospital (Japan)
Kiminori Suzuki, Chiba Foundation for Health Promotion & Disease Prevention (Japan)
Masahiro Endo, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Japan)
Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 5372:
Medical Imaging 2004: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Dev P. Chakraborty; Miguel P. Eckstein, Editor(s)
© SPIE. Terms of Use
