DESCRIPTION

Package: viperData
Type: Package
Title: Supplementary Materials For The Impact of prevalence and case distribution in lab-based diagnostic imaging studies
Version: 1.0.2
Date: 2019-02-07
Author: Brandon D. Gallas, Weijie Chen, Elodia Cole, Robert Ochs, Nicholas A. Petrick,
  Etta D. Pisano, Berkman Sahiner, Frank W. Samuelson, and Kyle J. Myers
Maintainer: Dr. Brandon D. Gallas <brandon.gallas@fda.hhs.gov>
Description: This package contains supplementary materials (data, functions, markdown files)
  for the following paper :
    TITLE: Impact of prevalence and case distribution in lab-based diagnostic imaging studies
    CITATION INFO: J. of Medical Imaging, 6(1), 015501 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.6.1.015501
    ABSTRACT: We investigated effects of prevalence and case distribution on radiologist diagnostic
  performance as measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and
  sensitivity-specificity in lab-based reader studies evaluating imaging devices.
  Our retrospective reader studies compared full-field digital mammography (FFDM) to screen-film
  mammography (SFM) for women with dense breasts. Mammograms were acquired from the prospective
  Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST). We performed five reader studies that differed
  in terms of cancer prevalence and the distribution of non-cancers. Twenty radiologists participated
  in each reader study. Using split-plot study designs, we collected recall decisions and multi-level
  scores from the radiologists for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Differences in
  reader-averaged AUCs slightly favored SFM over FFDM (biggest AUC difference: 0.047, SE=0.023 p=0.047),
  where standard error (SE) accounts for reader and case variability. The differences were not
  significant at a level of 0.01 (0.05/5 reader studies). The differences in sensitivities and
  specificities were also indeterminate. Prevalence had little effect on AUC (largest difference: 0.02),
  whereas sensitivity increased and specificity decreased as prevalence increased. We found that AUC
  is robust to changes in prevalence, while radiologists were more aggressive with recall decisions
  as prevalence increased.
    **Keywords** Image Evaluation, Study Design, MRMC analysis, AUC, Sensitivity, Specificity.
License: CC0
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
RoxygenNote: 7.2.3
Depends: R (>= 2.10)
Suggests: 
    testthat
Imports:
    iMRMC