4.7 Article

Ideal observers and optimal ROC hypersurfaces in N-class classification

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 891-895

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2004.828358

关键词

ROC analysis; ideal observer; N-class classification

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA60187] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB002146-02, R01 EB002146, R01 EB002146-03, R01 EB002146-01A1] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01-GM57622] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The likelihood ratio, or ideal observer, decision rule is known to be optimal for two-class classification tasks in the sense that it maximizes expected utility (or, equivalently, minimizes the Bayes risk). Furthermore, using this decision rule yields a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve which is never above the ROC curve produced using any other decision rule, provided the observer's misclassification rate with respect to one of the two classes is chosen as the dependent variable for the curve (i.e., an inversion of the more common formulation in which the observer's true-positive fraction is plotted against its false-positive fraction). It is also known that for a decision task requiring classification of observations into N classes, optimal performance in the expected utility sense is obtained using a set of N - I likelihood ratios as decision variables. In the N-class extension of ROC analysis, the ideal observer performance is describable in terms of an (N-2 - N - 1) -parameter hypersurface in an (N-2 - N)-dimensional probability space. We show that the result for two classes holds in this case as well, namely that the ROC hypersurface obtained using the ideal observer decision rule is never above the ROC hypersurface obtained using any other decision rule (where in our formulation performance is given exclusively with respect to between-class error rates rather than within-class sensitivities).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据