
doi: 10.1002/sim.7507
pmid: 28980323
We study inference methods for the analysis of multireader diagnostic trials. In these studies, data are usually collected in terms of a factorial design involving the factors Modality and Reader. Furthermore, repeated measures appear in a natural way since the same patient is observed under different modalities by several readers and the repeated measures may have a quite involved dependency structure. The hypotheses are formulated in terms of the areas under the ROC curves. Currently, only global testing procedures exist for the analysis of such data. We derive rank‐based multiple contrast test procedures and simultaneous confidence intervals which take the correlation between the test statistics into account. The procedures allow for testing arbitrary multiple hypotheses. Extensive simulation studies show that the new approaches control the nominal type 1 error rate very satisfactorily. A real data set illustrates the application of the proposed methods.
multiple comparisons, Observer Variation, Clinical Trials as Topic, Models, Statistical, Breast Neoplasms, factorial designs, ROC curves, Biostatistics, Statistics, Nonparametric, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, ROC Curve, Sample Size, nonparametrics, Confidence Intervals, Humans, Computer Simulation, Female, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, Mammography
multiple comparisons, Observer Variation, Clinical Trials as Topic, Models, Statistical, Breast Neoplasms, factorial designs, ROC curves, Biostatistics, Statistics, Nonparametric, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, ROC Curve, Sample Size, nonparametrics, Confidence Intervals, Humans, Computer Simulation, Female, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, Mammography
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
