tailieunhanh - báo cáo hóa học: " Computer-aided diagnosis of renal obstruction: utility of log-linear modeling versus standard ROC and kappa analysis"

Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành hóa học dành cho các bạn yêu hóa học tham khảo đề tài: Computer-aided diagnosis of renal obstruction: utility of log-linear modeling versus standard ROC and kappa analysis | Manatunga et al. EJNMMI Research 2011 1 5 http content 1 1 5 9 EJNMMI Research a SpringerOpen Journal ORIGINAL RESEARCH Open Access Computer-aided diagnosis of renal obstruction utility of log-linear modeling versus standard ROC and kappa analysis Amita K Manatunga1 José Nilo G Binongo1 and Andrew T Taylor2 Abstract Background The accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis CAD software is best evaluated by comparison to a gold standard which represents the true status of disease. In many settings however knowledge of the true status of disease is not possible and accuracy is evaluated against the interpretations of an expert panel. Common statistical approaches to evaluate accuracy include receiver operating characteristic ROC and kappa analysis but both of these methods have significant limitations and cannot answer the question of equivalence Is the CAD performance equivalent to that of an expert The goal of this study is to show the strength of log-linear analysis over standard ROC and kappa statistics in evaluating the accuracy of computer-aided diagnosis of renal obstruction compared to the diagnosis provided by expert readers. Methods Log-linear modeling was utilized to analyze a previously published database that used ROC and kappa statistics to compare diuresis renography scan interpretations non-obstructed equivocal or obstructed generated by a renal expert system RENEX in 185 kidneys 95 patients with the independent and consensus scan interpretations of three experts who were blinded to clinical information and prospectively and independently graded each kidney as obstructed equivocal or non-obstructed. Results Log-linear modeling showed that RENEX and the expert consensus had beyond-chance agreement in both non-obstructed and obstructed readings both p . Moreover pairwise agreement between experts and pairwise agreement between each expert and RENEX were not significantly different p for the non-obstructed equivocal and