PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Alicia Y Toledano

Publications and source records attributed to Alicia Y Toledano.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Three methods for analysing correlated ROC curves: a comparison in real data sets from multi-reader, multi-case studies with a factorial design.

This paper compares three published methods for analysing multiple correlated ROC curves: a method using generalized estimating equations with marginal non-proportional ordinal regression models; a method using jackknifed pseudovalues of summary statistics; a method using a corrected F-test from analysis of variance of summary statistics. Use of these methods is illustrated through six real data examples from studies with the common factorial design, that is, multiple readers interpreting images obtained with each test modality on each study subject. The issue of the difference between typical summary statistics and summary statistics from typical ROC curves is explored. The examples also address similarities and differences among the analytical methods. In particular, while point estimates of differences between test modalities are similar, the standard errors of these differences do not agree for all three methods. A simulation study supports the standard errors provided by the generalized estimating equations with marginal non-proportional ordinal regression models.

Analysis of Variance↗

Computerized tomographic colonography: performance evaluation in a retrospective multicenter setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: No multicenter study has been reported evaluating the performance and interobserver variability of computerized tomographic colonography. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of computerized tomographic colonography for detecting clinically important colorectal neoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a multi-institutional study. METHODS: A retrospective study was developed from 341 patients who had computerized tomographic colonography and colonoscopy among 8 medical centers. Colonoscopy and pathology reports provided the standard. A random sample of 117 patients, stratified by criterion standard, was requested. Ninety-three patients were included (47% with polyps >or=10 mm; mean age, 62 years; 56% men; 84% white; 40% reported colorectal symptoms; 74% at increased risk for colorectal cancer). Eighteen radiologists blinded to the criterion standard interpreted computerized tomography colonography examinations, each using 2 of 3 different software display platforms. RESULTS: The average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for identifying patients with at least 1 lesion >or=10 mm was 0.80 (95% lower confidence bound, 0.74). The average sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% lower confidence bound, 68%) and 73% (95% lower confidence bound, 66%), respectively. Per-polyp sensitivity was 75%. A trend was observed for better performance with more observer experience. There was no difference in performance across software display platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized tomographic colonography performance compared favorably with reported performance of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema. A prospective study evaluating the performance of computerized tomography colonography in a screening population is indicated.

Colonic Neoplasms↗