. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 1.

Published in final edited form as: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016 Dec 22;36(4):917–929. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2016.2643684

TABLE VI.

Comparison of AUCs for Tc for Individual Sub-ensemble Using the Optimal Parameters Obtained Using the Three Observer Strategies

Sub-ensemble/defect type	Single-template HO	Multi-template HO with averaged AUCs	Multi-template LD with pooled test statistics
1	0.968±0.003	0.980±0.002	0.977±0.003
2	0.949±0.004	0.937±0.005	0.949±0.004^a
3	0.954±0.004	0.950±0.004^a	0.957±0.004^a
4	0.899±0.006	0.877±0.007	0.900±0.006^a
5	0.709±0.011	0.793±0.009	0.774±0.010
6	0.674±0.011	0.724±0.011	0.702±0.011

The AUC for each sub-ensemble was calculated using the single-template HO strategy and values after ± are the standard deviations of the AUCs.

The AUC difference compared to the single-template strategy was either not statistically significant (p > 0.05) or not clinically important (difference < 0.01).