IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v11y1991i1p9-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enhancing and Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy

Author

Listed:
  • John A. Swets
  • David J. Getty
  • Ronald M. Pickett
  • Carl J. D'Orsi
  • Steven E. Seltzer
  • Barbara J. McNeil

Abstract

Techniques that may enhance diagnostic accuracy in clinical settings were tested in the context of mammography. Statistical information about the relevant features among those visible in a mammogram and about their relative importances in the diagnosis of breast cancer was the basis of two decision aids for radiologists: a checklist that guides the ra diologist in assigning a scale value to each significant feature of the images of a particular case, and a computer program that merges those scale values optimally to estimate a probability of malignancy. A test set of approximately 150 proven cases (including normals and benign and malignant lesions) was interpreted by six radiologists, first in their usual manner and later with the decision aids. The enhancing effect of these feature-analytic techniques was analyzed across subsets of cases that were restricted progressively to more and more difficult cases, where difficulty was defined in terms of the radiologists' judgments in the standard reading condition. Accuracy in both standard and enhanced conditions de creased regularly and substantially as case difficulty increased, but differentially, such that the enhancement effect grew regularly and substantially. For the most difficult case sets, the observed increases in accuracy translated into an increase of about 0.15 in sensitivity (true-positive proportion) for a selected specificity (true-negative proportion) of 0.85 or a similar increase in specificity for a selected sensitivity of 0.85. That measured accuracy can depend on case-set difficulty to different degrees for two diagnostic approaches has general implications for evaluation in clinical medicine. Comparative, as well as absolute, assess ments of diagnostic performances—for example, of alternative imaging techniques—may be distorted by inadequate treatments of this experimental variable. Subset analysis, as defined and illustrated here, can be useful in alleviating the problem. Key words: computer- aided diagnosis; expert systems; technology assessment; quality assurance; diagnostic ac curacy; ROC analysis; feature analysis; cognitive processes; perception. (Med Decis Making 1991;11:9-18)

Suggested Citation

  • John A. Swets & David J. Getty & Ronald M. Pickett & Carl J. D'Orsi & Steven E. Seltzer & Barbara J. McNeil, 1991. "Enhancing and Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 11(1), pages 9-17, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:11:y:1991:i:1:p:9-17
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9101100102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9101100102
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9101100102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Radhika Nath & Thomas R. Stewart, 2002. "Affirmative action, duality of error, and the consequences of mispredicting the academic performance of african american college applicants," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 63-77.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:11:y:1991:i:1:p:9-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.