Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2262011980
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Teefey, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Ritter, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Teefey, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Ritter, J. H.

Detection of Primary Hepatic Malignancy in Liver Transplant Candidates: Prospective Comparison of CT, MR Imaging, US, and PET1

Sharlene A. Teefey, MD, Charles C. Hildeboldt, DDS, PhD, Farrokh Dehdashti, MD, Barry A. Siegel, MD, Marion G. Peters, MD2, Jay P. Heiken, MD, Jeffrey J. Brown, MD, Elizabeth G. McFarland, MD, William D. Middleton, MD, Dennis M. Balfe, MD and Jon H. Ritter, MD

1 From the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (S.A.T., C.C.H., F.D., B.A.S., J.P.H., J.J.B., E.G.M., W.D.M., D.M.B.), Departments of Internal Medicine (M.G.P.) and Pathology (J.H.R.), and Siteman Cancer Center (S.A.T., C.C.H., F.D., B.A.S., J.P.H., J.J.B., E.G.M., W.D.M., D.M.B., J.H.R.), Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, St Louis, MO 63110. Received December 4, 2001; revision requested February 18, 2002; revision received April 8; accepted May 23. Address correspondence to S.A.T. (e-mail: teefeys@mir.wustl.edu).



View larger version (33K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. ROC curves of the average Az scores for US, MR imaging, and CT. PET data were degenerate. TPF = true positive fraction (sensitivity), FPF = false positive fraction. 1 and 2 refer to observers 1 and 2 for each modality.

 


View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Probability plots of the relationships between rating responses (horizontal axes) and truth for all modalities. The line of fit partitions the whole probability into the response categories. The probability of the cases being negative can be read directly from the vertical axis. The probability of the cases being positive is the distance from the line to the top of the graph, which is 1 minus the axis reading. For example, if the rating score for US were 4, the probability of the case being negative would be about 82% and the probability of it being positive would be about 18%. If the rating response were 2, the probability of the case being negative would be about 33% and the probability of it being positive about 67%. 1 and 2 refer to observers 1 and 2 for each modality.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2003 by the Radiological Society of North America.