Human Versus Machine: How Do We Know Who Is Winning? ROC Analysis for Comparing Human and Machine Performance under Varying Cost-Prevalence Assumptions.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Methods of Information in Medicine Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-31 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1740565
Michael Merry, Patricia Jean Riddle, Jim Warren
{"title":"Human Versus Machine: How Do We Know Who Is Winning? ROC Analysis for Comparing Human and Machine Performance under Varying Cost-Prevalence Assumptions.","authors":"Michael Merry,&nbsp;Patricia Jean Riddle,&nbsp;Jim Warren","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1740565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is commonly used for comparing models and humans; however, the exact analytical techniques vary and some are flawed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of the study is to identify common flaws in ROC analysis for human versus model performance, and address them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We review current use and identify common errors. We also review the ROC analysis literature for more appropriate techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identify concerns in three techniques: (1) using mean human sensitivity and specificity; (2) assuming humans can be approximated by ROCs; and (3) matching sensitivity and specificity. We identify a technique from Provost et al using dominance tables and cost-prevalence gradients that can be adapted to address these concerns.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dominance tables and cost-prevalence gradients provide far greater detail when comparing performances of models and humans, and address common failings in other approaches. This should be the standard method for such analyses moving forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":49822,"journal":{"name":"Methods of Information in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e45-e49"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b0/e2/10-1055-s-0041-1740565.PMC9246510.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods of Information in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1740565","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is commonly used for comparing models and humans; however, the exact analytical techniques vary and some are flawed.

Objectives: The aim of the study is to identify common flaws in ROC analysis for human versus model performance, and address them.

Methods: We review current use and identify common errors. We also review the ROC analysis literature for more appropriate techniques.

Results: We identify concerns in three techniques: (1) using mean human sensitivity and specificity; (2) assuming humans can be approximated by ROCs; and (3) matching sensitivity and specificity. We identify a technique from Provost et al using dominance tables and cost-prevalence gradients that can be adapted to address these concerns.

Conclusion: Dominance tables and cost-prevalence gradients provide far greater detail when comparing performances of models and humans, and address common failings in other approaches. This should be the standard method for such analyses moving forward.

Abstract Image

人类与机器:我们如何知道谁是赢家?在不同成本-流行假设下比较人和机器性能的ROC分析。
背景:接受者工作特征(ROC)分析通常用于比较模型和人类;然而,确切的分析技术各不相同,有些还存在缺陷。目的:本研究的目的是识别人类与模型表现的ROC分析中的常见缺陷,并解决它们。方法:我们回顾当前的使用并找出常见的错误。我们也回顾ROC分析文献以寻求更合适的技术。结果:我们确定了三种技术的关注点:(1)使用平均人类敏感性和特异性;(2)假设人类可以用roc近似;(3)匹配灵敏度和特异性。我们从Provost等人使用优势表和成本-流行梯度确定了一种技术,可以适应这些问题。结论:优势表和成本-流行梯度在比较模型和人类的表现时提供了更多的细节,并解决了其他方法中的常见缺陷。这应该是这类分析的标准方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methods of Information in Medicine
Methods of Information in Medicine 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
33
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Good medicine and good healthcare demand good information. Since the journal''s founding in 1962, Methods of Information in Medicine has stressed the methodology and scientific fundamentals of organizing, representing and analyzing data, information and knowledge in biomedicine and health care. Covering publications in the fields of biomedical and health informatics, medical biometry, and epidemiology, the journal publishes original papers, reviews, reports, opinion papers, editorials, and letters to the editor. From time to time, the journal publishes articles on particular focus themes as part of a journal''s issue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信