ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2017
No-gold-standard evaluation of image-acquisition methods using patient data.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several new and improved modalities, scanners, and protocols, together referred to as image-acquisition methods (IAMs), are being developed to provide reliable quantitative imaging. Objective evaluation of these IAMs on the clinically relevant quantitative tasks is highly desirable. Such evaluation is most reliable and clinically decisive when performed with patient data, but that requires the availability of a gold standard, which is often rare. While no-gold-standard (NGS) techniques have been developed to clinically evaluate quantitative imaging methods, these techniques require that each of the patients be scanned using all the IAMs, which is expensive, time consuming, and could lead to increased radiation dose. A more clinically practical scenario is where different set of patients are scanned using different IAMs. We have developed an NGS technique that uses patient data where different patient sets are imaged using different IAMs to compare the different IAMs. The technique posits a linear relationship, characterized by a slope, bias, and noise standard-deviation term, between the true and measured quantitative values. Under the assumption that the true quantitative values have been sampled from a unimodal distribution, a maximum-likelihood procedure was developed that estimates these linear relationship parameters for the different IAMs. Figures of merit can be estimated using these linear relationship parameters to evaluate the IAMs on the basis of accuracy, precision, and overall reliability. The proposed technique has several potential applications such as in protocol optimization, quantifying difference in system performance, and system harmonization using patient data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.