Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28491908›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2017

Lack of agreement between radiologists: implications for image-based model observers.

Juhun Lee, Robert M Nishikawa, Ingrid Reiser, Margarita L Zuley, John M Boone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Juhun LeeUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Robert M NishikawaUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Ingrid ReiserThe University of Chicago, Department of Radiology, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Margarita L ZuleyUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Radiology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
John M BooneUniversity of California Davis Medical Center, Department of Radiology, Sacramento, California, United States.

Funding

Breast CT: Final Steps to TranslationR01CA181081 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BOONE, JOHN M · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
A new approach to optimizing and evaluating computer-aided detection schemesR01EB013680 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI NISHIKAWA, ROBERT M · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
Quantitative Evaluation of Reconstruction Algorithms - Resubmission 01R21EB015053 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI NISHIKAWA, ROBERT M · 2012 to 2013
$417k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA181081NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB013680NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB015053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We tested the agreement of radiologists' rankings of different reconstructions of breast computed tomography images based on their diagnostic (classification) performance and on their subjective image quality assessments. We used 102 pathology proven cases (62 malignant, 40 benign), and an iterative image reconstruction (IIR) algorithm to obtain 24 reconstructions per case with different image appearances. Using image feature analysis, we selected 3 IIRs and 1 clinical reconstruction and 50 lesions. The reconstructions produced a range of image quality from smooth/low-noise to sharp/high-noise, which had a range in classifier performance corresponding to AUCs of 0.62 to 0.96. Six experienced Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) radiologists rated the likelihood of malignancy for each lesion. We conducted an additional reader study with the same radiologists and a subset of 30 lesions. Radiologists ranked each reconstruction according to their preference. There was disagreement among the six radiologists on which reconstruction produced images with the highest diagnostic content, but they preferred the midsharp/noise image appearance over the others. However, the reconstruction they preferred most did not match with their performance. Due to these disagreements, it may be difficult to develop a single image-based model observer that is representative of a population of radiologists for this particular imaging task.

Indexed as

breast cancerbreast computed tomographydiagnostic performancemodel observersreader study

Identifiers

PMID28491908
PMCPMC5414890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.