Evaluation of maximum likelihood ground truth and performance of readers stratified by aggressiveness from the Lung Imag...
AAPM.org ( Publisher's URL )
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000799/00001
 Material Information
Title: Evaluation of maximum likelihood ground truth and performance of readers stratified by aggressiveness from the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) study
Physical Description: Conference Papers
Creator: American Association of Physcists in Medicine ( Conference )
O'Dell, Walter
Publisher: AAPM
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Walter O'Dell.
General Note: Submitted abstract. Work accepted for talk (ppt) so no poster was made and slides hopefully will eventually become associated with this abstract.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00000799:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:

WOstapleNods_abs2011 ( PDF )

Full Text


Abstract ID: 15708 Title: Evaluation of maximum likelihood ground truth and performance of readers stratified by aggressiv eness from the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) study Innovation The novelty of this work is the application of expectation maximization and maximum likelihood techniques, which are well known to the biostatistics community, to the unique task of determining a reasonable and objective ground truth for nodule detection. While this work builds upon the important paper by Warfield, Zou and Wells, describing the STAPLE method, it represents a distinct change in implementation to address the immediate problem of deducing an optimal nodule detection ground truth from multiple truth. The task addressed by Warfield et al required an implementation of STAPLE specifically for the nodule segmentation task. Ross et al have since applied STAPLE in the segmentation task to an early LIDC subset, consisting of 41 scans. The unique utility of this work is that it is applied in this paper to the large LIDC outcomes data for which no previous analysis has been successful in extracting a viable detection ground truth. Indeed, al though portions of the LIDC database have become available publically since 2006, there is yet no full publication (although several IEEE SPIE Medical Imaging conference abstracts have been produced) applying CAD detection to the LIDC data largely because of the inability to overcome the ground truth problem. No prior publication deals with the task of extracting an objective ground truth for detection using STAPLE from the LIDC or any other tumor image database. The LIDC investigators have published sev eral papers looking at the variability in detection and segmentation performance amongst the readers of the study, but none have ventured to propose an optimal detection ground truth from their data. Magnitude of the ground truth problem for the LIDC T hese differing reader interpretations complicate the task of using the LIDC datasets for defining the ground truth for subsequent training and evaluation of CAD performance. Ochs et al different LIDC subsets based on the number of consensing readers and/or nodule size 1 In a more detailed analysis on an LIDC subset of 25 scans, Armato et al found that, for any one expert reader amongst the four in their ground truth panel, detection sensitivity ranged from 51 83%, depending on which radiologist and which ground truth metric was used 2 They 2 Notably, it is conceivable that one of the LIDC experts achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity, yet his or her sensitivity performance would have been assessed at only 51 83% by the subjective ground truth. By extension, applying this LIDC ground truth to train the next generation of radiologists, or the latest CAD algorithm, will inevitably lead both humans and computers to misidentify 17 49% of n odules. Due in large part to the problem in establishing an LIDC ground truth, only a few detection studies have been published involving the LIDC data 3 The majority limited their focus to nodules > 3 mm 4 and many further limited to those large nodules identified as such by all four LIDC readers 5 6 EM ML formulation The EM ML algorithm applied in this paper follows closely that of STAPLE, save for interpretation of ground truth and reader performance evaluated on a per nodule rather than per pixel basis. Only a cursory description is provide here and the reader is referred to the original paper by Warfield 7 For representing the percent of true positive detections (sensitivity performance) for reader r estimated at iteration k ; negative detections (specificity performance); an d the decision by reader r of whether nodule n is a true nodule, the equation for the estimate of the conditional probability of the true segmentation, for each nodule n is constructed through the intermediate parameters, and as: Here can be interpreted as the weight or probability of the nodule n being true at iteration k with a value ranging from 0.0 to 1.0. Given it is straightforward to compute expressions for the reader performance metrics, and that are derived from the definitions of sensitivity and specificity given earlier :


Abstract ID: 15708 Title: Evaluation of maximum likelihood ground truth and performance of readers stratified by aggressiv eness from the Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) study Table 1 : Number of nodule detections and optimized performance metrics for each reader, where each reader is ranked by aggressiveness in identifying nodules. The same performance metrics were obtained for a variety of initial ground truth estimates, and nodule weighting schemes, and for initial reader performance values ( p and q ) of 0.9. Ranked Reader 1 2 3 4 # of detections 2505 2119 1712 1272 Sensitivity ( p ) 0.98 40 0.96 68 0.918 3 0.71 79 Specificity ( q ) 0.2 227 0.5 305 0.81 2 6 0.9 10 6 Literature Cited 1. Ochs R, Kim HJ, Angel E, et al. Forming a reference standard from LIDC data: impact of reader agreement on reported CAD performance. In: Proceedings of SPIE San Diego, CA, USA; 2007. 2. Armato SG, Robert s RY, Kocherginsky M, et al. Assessment of radiologist performance in the detection of lung nodules: dependence on the definition of "truth". Acad Radiol 2009;16(1):28 38. 3. Ozekes S, Osman O. Computerized lung nodule detection using 3D feature extractio n and learning based algorithms. J Med Syst 2010;34(2):185 194. 4. Messay T, Hardie RC, Rogers SK. A new computationally efficient CAD system for pulmonary nodule detection in CT imagery. Med Image Anal 2010;14(3):390 406. 5. Golosio B, Masala GL, Piccio li A, et al. A novel multithreshold method for nodule detection in lung CT. Med Phys 2009;36(8):360 7 3618. 6. Opfer R, Wiemker R. Performance Analysis for Computer Aided Lung Nodule Detection on LIDC Data. In: Proceedings of SPIE San Diego, CA, USA; 200 7. 7. Warfield SK, Zou KH, Wells WM. Simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE): an algorithm for the validation of image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004;23(7):903 21.