跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究诊断准确性、ROC 与部分检测设计,没有明确因果效应识别;随机抽取检测样本本身不足以归入因果推断。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Stuart G Baker
Paul F Pinsky

比较数字与模拟乳腺摄影的研究设计和分析方案

研究问题
如何在无症状女性筛查中比较两类乳腺摄影的诊断表现,同时减少数字检查成本,并处理多数受试者癌症状态未知的问题?
方法与思路
作者提出部分检测设计:全部接受模拟检查,活检建议者及未建议者的随机样本再接受数字检查,并比较低假阳性率区间的部分 ROC 面积比。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称方案聚焦活检决策相关的 ROC 区域,并提出无需等待随访的比较指标,在指定患病率、效能和成本假设下计算样本量及节约。
阅读关注点
应核对抽样概率与部分检测的分析处理、未知癌症状态下的可识别性、部分 ROC 区间,以及样本量和成本计算的全部假设。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;样本量、成本节约和数字检查优势备择均属设计假设下的计算,不能当作临床效果证据。

原文摘要

Because randomized trials have shown a reduction in breast cancer mortality, analog mammography for the early detection of breast cancer has gained widespread use. Recently, several manufacturers have developed digital mammography, which promises great advantages in the storage and transmission of images. We were asked to design a study to compare the two types of mammography in terms of their performance for the early detection of breast cancer. A standard measure of mammography performance is the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which is a plot of false- and true-positive rates for each ordered classification of the mammography images. Methods for study design and data analysis based on ROC curves have been well developed for diagnostic tests, particularly in radiology. But for comparing the performance of mammography for the early detection of breast cancer among asymptomatic women, special considerations motivate new designs and methodology. First, digital mammography may cost substantially more than analog mammography. If this is the case, then the standard paired design, in which each subject undergoes both types of mammography, may be more expensive than necessary. To reduce costs, we propose a partial testing design, in which all subjects undergo analog mammography and those recommended for biopsy and a random sample not recommended for biopsy also undergo digital mammography. Second, the false-positive rate for analog mammography, defined as the rate of unnecessary biopsy, is near 1%. A standard ROC analysis that compares areas under the entire ROC curve would summarize performance over false-positive rates that are not relevant for evaluating the performance of cancer screening. As a more appropriate alternative, we propose basing inference on the areas under the small part of the ROC curves near the false-positive rates corresponding to a biopsy recommendation. Third, the vast majority of screened subjects are not biopsied, and so have an unknown cancer state at the time of screening. To make inference about the performance of a cancer screening test, the standard approach is to follow subjects not biopsied for some period, usually 1 year, and assume that those who developed cancer were missed on screening and those who did not develop cancer were cancer-free at screening. Unfortunately, this follow-up period can greatly lengthen the duration of the study. To compare the performance of digital and analog mammography without the need for a follow-up period, we propose estimating the ratio of areas under the ROC curves near the small false-positive rates associated with a biopsy recommendation. To compute sample sizes, our null hypothesis is that the ratio of partial ROC areas is 1, and our two possible alternative hypotheses are ratios of 1.6 and 2, both indicating superior performance for digital mammography. We assume a breast cancer prevalence of .003 and specify various parameters for the shapes of the ROC curves and their dependence. For a two-sided type I error of .05 and a power of .9, a standard paired design would require that 22,000 subjects undergo both analog and digital mammography. For the same type I error and power, the proposed partial testing design would require that 35,000 subjects undergo analog mammography and 10,000 subjects undergo both analog and digital mammography. Compared to the paired design, the reduction in the cost per subject is 23% if digital mammography costs four times as much as analog mammography and 41% if digital mammography costs 10 times as much as analog mammography.

笔记与分组