Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28829044›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2017

A comparison of resampling schemes for estimating model observer performance with small ensembles.

Fatma E A Elshahaby, Abhinav K Jha, Michael Ghaly, Eric C Frey

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Fatma E A ElshahabyDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States of America.
Abhinav K JhaThe Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America.
Michael GhalyThe Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3043-8105
Eric C FreyDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Dose Reduction in Pediatric Molecular ImagingR01EB013558 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FREY, ERIC C., SGOUROS, GEORGE · 2012 to 2020
$4.6M
Quantitative SPECT for Targeted Radionuclide TherapyR01CA109234 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FREY, ERIC C. · 2006 to 2015
$4.2M
End-to-End Optimization of SPECT Instrumentation, Acquisition, and ReconstructionR01EB016231 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FREY, ERIC C., LINKS, JONATHAN M. · 2013 to 2016
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA109234NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB013558NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB016231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In objective assessment of image quality, an ensemble of images is used to compute the 1st and 2nd order statistics of the data. Often, only a finite number of images is available, leading to the issue of statistical variability in numerical observer performance. Resampling-based strategies can help overcome this issue. In this paper, we compared different combinations of resampling schemes (the leave-one-out (LOO) and the half-train/half-test (HT/HT)) and model observers (the conventional channelized Hotelling observer (CHO), channelized linear discriminant (CLD) and channelized quadratic discriminant). Observer performance was quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). For a binary classification task and for each observer, the AUC value for an ensemble size of 2000 samples per class served as a gold standard for that observer. Results indicated that each observer yielded a different performance depending on the ensemble size and the resampling scheme. For a small ensemble size, the combination [CHO, HT/HT] had more accurate rankings than the combination [CHO, LOO]. Using the LOO scheme, the CLD and CHO had similar performance for large ensembles. However, the CLD outperformed the CHO and gave more accurate rankings for smaller ensembles. As the ensemble size decreased, the performance of the [CHO, LOO] combination seriously deteriorated as opposed to the [CLD, LOO] combination. Thus, it might be desirable to use the CLD with the LOO scheme when smaller ensemble size is available.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsObserver VariationPhantoms, ImagingArea Under CurveHeartHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMyocardial Perfusion Imaging

Identifiers

PMID28829044
PMCPMC5944841
OpenAlexW2749333982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.