Quantitative imaging biomarkers: A review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons

Author:

Obuchowski Nancy A1,Reeves Anthony P2,Huang Erich P3,Wang Xiao-Feng1,Buckler Andrew J4,Kim Hyun J (Grace)5,Barnhart Huiman X6,Jackson Edward F7,Giger Maryellen L8,Pennello Gene9,Toledano Alicia Y10,Kalpathy-Cramer Jayashree11,Apanasovich Tatiyana V12,Kinahan Paul E13,Myers Kyle J9,Goldgof Dmitry B14,Barboriak Daniel P6,Gillies Robert J15,Schwartz Lawrence H16,Sullivan Daniel C6,

Affiliation:

1. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

2. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

3. National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA

4. Elucid Bioimaging Inc., Wenham, MA, USA

5. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

6. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

7. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

8. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

9. Food and Drug Administration/CDRH, Silver Spring, MD, USA

10. Biostatistics Consulting, LLC, Kensington, MD, USA

11. MGH/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

12. George Washington University, NW Washington, DC, USA

13. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

14. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

15. H. Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

16. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Abstract

Quantitative biomarkers from medical images are becoming important tools for clinical diagnosis, staging, monitoring, treatment planning, and development of new therapies. While there is a rich history of the development of quantitative imaging biomarker (QIB) techniques, little attention has been paid to the validation and comparison of the computer algorithms that implement the QIB measurements. In this paper we provide a framework for QIB algorithm comparisons. We first review and compare various study designs, including designs with the true value (e.g. phantoms, digital reference images, and zero-change studies), designs with a reference standard (e.g. studies testing equivalence with a reference standard), and designs without a reference standard (e.g. agreement studies and studies of algorithm precision). The statistical methods for comparing QIB algorithms are then presented for various study types using both aggregate and disaggregate approaches. We propose a series of steps for establishing the performance of a QIB algorithm, identify limitations in the current statistical literature, and suggest future directions for research.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Information Management,Statistics and Probability,Epidemiology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3