AUB ScholarWorks

On the choice of acceptance radius in free-response observer performance studies

Show simple item record Haygood T.M. Ryan J. Brennan P.C. Li S. Marom E.M. McEntee M.F. Itani M. Evanoff M. Chakraborty D.
dc.contributor.editor 2013 2017-10-05T15:33:36Z 2017-10-05T15:33:36Z 2013
dc.identifier 10.1259/bjr/42313554
dc.identifier.issn 00071285
dc.description.abstract Objectives: Choosing an acceptance radius or proximity criterion is necessary to analyse free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) observer performance data. This is currently subjective, with little guidance in the literature about what is an appropriate acceptance radius. We evaluated varying acceptance radii in a nodule detection task in chest radiography and suggest guidelines for determining an acceptance radius. Methods: 80 chest radiographs were chosen, half of which contained nodules. We determined each nodule's centre. 21 radiologists read the images. We created acceptance radii bins of 5 pixels, 10 pixels, 20 pixels and onwards up to 200 and 200+ pixels. We counted lesion localisations in each bin and visually compared marks with the borders of nodules. Results: Most reader marks were tightly clustered around nodule centres, with tighter clustering for smaller than for larger nodules. At least 70percent of readers' marks were placed within 10 pixels for small nodules, 20 pixels for medium nodules and 30 pixels for large nodules. Of 72 inspected marks that were less than 50 pixels from the centre of a nodule, only 1 fell outside the border of a nodule. Conclusion: The acceptance radius should be based on the larger nodule sizes. For our data, an acceptance radius of 50 pixels would have captured all but 2 reader marks within the borders of a nodule, while excluding only 1 true-positive mark. The choice of an acceptance radius for FROC analysis of observer performance studies should be based on the size of larger abnormalities. © 2013 The British Institute of Radiology.
dc.language English
dc.publisher LONDON
dc.relation.ispartof Publication Name: British Journal of Radiology; Publication Year: 2013; Volume: 86; no. 1021;
dc.source Scopus
dc.title On the choice of acceptance radius in free-response observer performance studies
dc.type Article
dc.contributor.affiliation Haygood, T.M., Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77536, United States
dc.contributor.affiliation Ryan, J., Vizovo Ltd-Vizovo Inc., San Diego, CA, United States
dc.contributor.affiliation Brennan, P.C., Vizovo Ltd-Vizovo Inc., San Diego, CA, United States
dc.contributor.affiliation Li, S.
dc.contributor.affiliation Marom, E.M., Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77536, United States
dc.contributor.affiliation McEntee, M.F., Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
dc.contributor.affiliation Itani, M., Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
dc.contributor.affiliation Evanoff, M., American Board of Radiology, Tucson, AZ, United States
dc.contributor.affiliation Chakraborty, D., Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
dc.contributor.authorAddress Haygood, T.M.; Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77536, United States; email:
dc.contributor.authorCorporate University: American University of Beirut Medical Center; Faculty: Faculty of Medicine; Department: Diagnostic Radiology;
dc.contributor.authorDepartment Diagnostic Radiology
dc.contributor.authorFaculty Faculty of Medicine
dc.contributor.authorInitials Haygood, TM
dc.contributor.authorInitials Ryan, J
dc.contributor.authorInitials Brennan, PC
dc.contributor.authorInitials Li, S
dc.contributor.authorInitials Marom, EM
dc.contributor.authorInitials McEntee, MF
dc.contributor.authorInitials Itani, M
dc.contributor.authorInitials Evanoff, M
dc.contributor.authorInitials Chakraborty, D
dc.contributor.authorReprintAddress Haygood, TM (reprint author), Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, 1515 Holcombe Blvd,Unit 1475, Houston, TX 77536 USA.
dc.contributor.authorUniversity American University of Beirut Medical Center
dc.description.cited Chakraborty D, 2007, ACAD RADIOL, V14, P4, DOI 10.1016-j.acra.2006.10.015; Chakraborty DP, 2010, RADIAT PROT DOSIM, V139, P20, DOI 10.1093-rpd-ncp305; Chakraborty DP, 2011, SEMIN NUCL MED, V41, P401, DOI 10.1053-j.semnuclmed.2011.07.001; FITTS PM, 1964, J EXP PSYCHOL, V67, P103, DOI 10.1037-h0045689; Gifford HC, 2007, IEEE T NUCL SCI, V54, P116, DOI 10.1109-TNS.2006.889163; Harisinghani MG, 2004, RADIOGRAPHICS, V24, P615, DOI 10.1148-rg.242035089; Kallergi M, 1999, MED PHYS, V26, P267, DOI 10.1118-1.598514; KUNDEL H L, 1975, Radiology, V114, P269; KUNDEL HL, 1972, RADIOLOGY, V103, P523; Liu B, 2009, PHYS MED BIOL, V54, P2651, DOI 10.1088-0031-9155-54-9-004; Mello-Thoms C, 2005, ACAD RADIOL, V12, P830, DOI 10.1016-j.acra.2005.03.068; Mello-Thoms C, 2002, ACAD RADIOL, V9, P1004, DOI 10.1016-S1076-6332(03)80475-0; METZ CE, 1989, INVEST RADIOL, V24, P234, DOI 10.1097-00004424-198903000-00012; METZ CE, 1986, INVEST RADIOL, V21, P720; METZ CE, 1978, SEMIN NUCL MED, V8, P283, DOI 10.1016-S0001-2998(78)80014-2; Metz Charles E, 2006, J Am Coll Radiol, V3, P413, DOI 10.1016-j.jacr.2006.02.021; Metz Charles E, 2008, Radiol Phys Technol, V1, P2, DOI 10.1007-s12194-007-0002-1; Penedo M, 2005, RADIOLOGY, V237, P450, DOI 10.1148-radiol.2372040996
dc.description.citedCount 3
dc.description.citedTotWOSCount 1
dc.description.citedWOSCount 1
dc.format.extentCount 1
dc.identifier.articleNo 42313554
dc.identifier.coden BJRAA
dc.identifier.pubmedID 22573302
dc.identifier.scopusID 84871875724
dc.publisher.address 36 PORTLAND PLACE, LONDON W1N 4AT, ENGLAND
dc.relation.ispartOfISOAbbr Br. J. Radiol.
dc.relation.ispartOfIssue 1021
dc.relation.ispartofPubTitle British Journal of Radiology
dc.relation.ispartofPubTitleAbbr Br. J. Radiol.
dc.relation.ispartOfVolume 86
dc.source.ID WOS:000315266900030
dc.type.publication Journal
dc.subject.otherIndex acceptance radius
dc.subject.otherIndex article
dc.subject.otherIndex lung lesion
dc.subject.otherIndex radiological parameters
dc.subject.otherIndex receiver operating characteristic
dc.subject.otherIndex thorax radiography
dc.subject.otherIndex computer assisted diagnosis
dc.subject.otherIndex computer assisted tomography
dc.subject.otherIndex human
dc.subject.otherIndex image quality
dc.subject.otherIndex lung nodule
dc.subject.otherIndex methodology
dc.subject.otherIndex observer variation
dc.subject.otherIndex radiography
dc.subject.otherIndex receiver operating characteristic
dc.subject.otherIndex reproducibility
dc.subject.otherIndex sensitivity and specificity
dc.subject.otherIndex thorax radiography
dc.subject.otherIndex Humans
dc.subject.otherIndex Observer Variation
dc.subject.otherIndex Radiographic Image Enhancement
dc.subject.otherIndex Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
dc.subject.otherIndex Radiography, Thoracic
dc.subject.otherIndex Reproducibility of Results
dc.subject.otherIndex ROC Curve
dc.subject.otherIndex Sensitivity and Specificity
dc.subject.otherIndex Solitary Pulmonary Nodule
dc.subject.otherIndex Tomography, X-Ray Computed
dc.subject.otherKeywordPlus VISUAL-SEARCH
dc.subject.otherKeywordPlus ROC
dc.subject.otherKeywordPlus LOCALIZATION
dc.subject.otherKeywordPlus MAMMOGRAPHY
dc.subject.otherKeywordPlus METHODOLOGY
dc.subject.otherWOS Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search AUB ScholarWorks


My Account