ArticleAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2013
In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging.
Article in American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing SUV Analysis: A Multicenter Study on Preclinical FDG-PET/CT Highlights the Impact of Standardization.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Observational
- Super U-Net: a modularized generalizable architecture.Pattern recognition · 2022Article
- Interreader Variability of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI of Recurrent Glioblastoma: The Multicenter ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625 Study.Radiology · 2019Article
- Automatic and fast segmentation of breast region-of-interest (ROI) and density in MRIs.Heliyon · 2018Article
- Radiologic-pathologic analysis of quantitative 3D tumour enhancement on contrast-enhanced MR imaging: a study of ROI placement.European radiology · 2016Article
- Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.Statistical methods in medical research · 2015Review
- FDG-PET imaging in mild traumatic brain injury: a critical review.Frontiers in neuroenergetics · 2014Review
- Quantitative imaging biomarker ontology (QIBO) for knowledge representation of biomedical imaging biomarkers.Journal of digital imaging · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We estimated reader-dependent variability of region of interest (ROI) analysis and evaluated its impact on preclinical quantitative molecular imaging. To estimate reader variability, we used five independent image datasets acquired each using microPET and multispectral fluorescence imaging (MSFI). We also selected ten experienced researchers who utilize molecular imaging in the same environment that they typically perform their own studies. Nine investigators blinded to the data type completed the ROI analysis by drawing ROIs manually that delineate the tumor regions to the best of their knowledge and repeated the measurements three times, non-consecutively. Extracted mean intensities of voxels within each ROI are used to compute the coefficient of variation (CV) and characterize the inter- and intra-reader variability. The impact of variability was assessed through random samples iterated from normal distributions for control and experimental groups on hypothesis testing and computing statistical power by varying subject size, measured difference between groups and CV. The results indicate that inter-reader variability was 22.5% for microPET and 72.2% for MSFI. Additionally, mean intra-reader variability was 10.1% for microPET and 26.4% for MSFI. Repeated statistical testing showed that a total variability of CV < 50% may be needed to detect differences < 50% between experimental and control groups when six subjects (n = 6) or more are used and statistical power is adequate (80%). Surprisingly high variability has been observed mainly due to differences in the ROI placement and geometry drawn between readers, which may adversely affect statistical power and erroneously lead to negative study outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23526701PMC3601477What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.