ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2015
Content-based image retrieval in radiology: analysis of variability in human perception of similarity.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Anatomic Labeling Architecture for Content Discovery in Medical Imaging Repositories.Journal of medical systems · 2018Article
- A Multimodal Search Engine for Medical Imaging Studies.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
- Systems Medicine: The Application of Systems Biology Approaches for Modern Medical Research and Drug Development.Molecular biology international · 2015Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aim to develop a better understanding of perception of similarity in focal computed tomography (CT) liver images to determine the feasibility of techniques for developing reference sets for training and validating content-based image retrieval systems. In an observer study, four radiologists and six nonradiologists assessed overall similarity and similarity in 5 image features in 136 pairs of focal CT liver lesions. We computed intra- and inter-reader agreements in these similarity ratings and viewed the distributions of the ratings. The readers' ratings of overall similarity and similarity in each feature primarily appeared to be bimodally distributed. Median Kappa scores for intra-reader agreement ranged from 0.57 to 0.86 in the five features and from 0.72 to 0.82 for overall similarity. Median Kappa scores for inter-reader agreement ranged from 0.24 to 0.58 in the five features and were 0.39 for overall similarity. There was no significant difference in agreement for radiologists and nonradiologists. Our results show that developing perceptual similarity reference standards is a complex task. Moderate to high inter-reader variability precludes ease of dividing up the workload of rating perceptual similarity among many readers, while low intra-reader variability may make it possible to acquire large volumes of data by asking readers to view image pairs over many sessions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.