4.6 Article

Maximum likelihood fitting of FROC curves under an initial-detection-and-candidate-analysis model

Journal

MEDICAL PHYSICS
Volume 29, Issue 12, Pages 2861-2870

Publisher

AMER ASSOC PHYSICISTS MEDICINE AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1118/1.1524631

Keywords

ROC; FROC; AFROC; curve fitting; maximum likelihood

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA60187] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01-GM57622] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have developed, a model for FROC curve fitting that relates the observer's FROC performance not to the ROC performance that would be obtained if the observer's responses were scored on a per image basis, but rather to a hypothesized ROC performance that the observer would obtain in the task of classifying a set of candidate detections as positive or negative. We adopt the assumptions of the Bunch FROC model, namely that the observer's detections are all mutually independent, as well as assumptions qualitatively similar to, but different in nature from, those made by Chakraborty in his AFROC scoring methodology. Under the assumptions of our model, we show that the observer's FROC performance is a linearly scaled version of the candidate analysis ROC curve, where the scaling factors are just given by the FROC operating point coordinates for detecting initial candidates. Further, we show that the likelihood function of the model parameters given observational data takes on a simple form, and we develop a maximum likelihood method for fitting a FROC curve to this data. FROC and AFROC curves are produced for computer vision observer datasets and compared with the results of the AFROC scoring method. Although developed primarily with computer vision schemes in mind, we hope that the methodology presented here will prove worthy of further study in other applications as well. (C) 2002 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available