Determination of subjective similarity for pairs of masses and pairs of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms: comparison of similarity ranking scores and absolute similarity ratings.

The presentation of images that are similar to that of an unknown lesion seen on a mammogram may be helpful for radiologists to correctly diagnose that lesion. For similar images to be useful, they must be quite similar from the radiologists' point of view. We have been trying to quantify the radiologists' impression of similarity for pairs of lesions and to establish a "gold standard" for development and evaluation of a computerized scheme for selecting such similar images. However, it is considered difficult to reliably and accurately determine similarity ratings, because they are subjective. In this study, we compared the subjective similarities obtained by two different methods, an absolute rating method and a 2-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) method, to demonstrate that reliable similarity ratings can be determined by the responses of a group of radiologists. The absolute similarity ratings were previously obtained for pairs of masses and pairs of microcalcifications from five and nine radiologists, respectively. In this study, similarity ranking scores for eight pairs of masses and eight pairs of microcalcifications were determined by use of the 2AFC method. In the first session, the eight pairs of masses and eight pairs of microcalcifications were grouped and compared separately for determining the similarity ranking scores. In the second session, another similarity ranking score was determined by use of mixed pairs, i.e., by comparison of the similarity of a mass pair with that of a calcification pair. Four pairs of masses and four pairs of microcalcifications were grouped together to create two sets of eight pairs. The average absolute similarity ratings and the average similarity ranking scores showed very good correlations in the first study (Pearson's correlation coefficients: 0.94 and 0.98 for masses and microcalcifications, respectively). Moreover, in the second study, the correlations between the absolute ratings and the ranking scores were also very high (0.92 and 0.96), which implies that the observers were able to compare the similarity of a mass pair with that of a calcification pair consistently. These results provide evidence that the concept of similarity for pairs of images is robust, even across different lesion types, and that radiologists are able to reliably determine subjective similarity for pairs of breast lesions.