ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2017
A comparison of resampling schemes for estimating model observer performance with small ensembles.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Need for objective task-based evaluation of deep learning-based denoising methods: A study in the context of myocardial perfusion SPECT.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Optimizing constrained reconstruction in magnetic resonance imaging for signal detection.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- A projection image database to investigate factors affecting image quality in weight-based dosing: application to pediatric renal SPECT.Physics in medicine and biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.