ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017
Improving Consensus Scoring of Crowdsourced Data Using the Rasch Model: Development and Refinement of a Diagnostic Instrument.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- A Virtual Reading Center Model Using Crowdsourcing to Grade Photographs for Trachoma: Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Detection of trachoma using machine learning approaches.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Intervention for Health Care Challenges: Some Biomedical Domain Considerations.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- ComprehENotes, an Instrument to Assess Patient Reading Comprehension of Electronic Health Record Notes: Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss in working age individuals worldwide. While screening is effective and cost effective, it remains underutilized, and novel methods are needed to increase detection of DR. This clinical validation study compared diagnostic gradings of retinal fundus photographs provided by volunteers on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) crowdsourcing marketplace with expert-provided gold-standard grading and explored whether determination of the consensus of crowdsourced classifications could be improved beyond a simple majority vote (MV) using regression methods.
objectiveThe aim of our study was to determine whether regression methods could be used to improve the consensus grading of data collected by crowdsourcing.
methodsA total of 1200 retinal images of individuals with diabetes mellitus from the Messidor public dataset were posted to AMT. Eligible crowdsourcing workers had at least 500 previously approved tasks with an approval rating of 99% across their prior submitted work. A total of 10 workers were recruited to classify each image as normal or abnormal. If half or more workers judged the image to be abnormal, the MV consensus grade was recorded as abnormal. Rasch analysis was then used to calculate worker ability scores in a random 50% training set, which were then used as weights in a regression model in the remaining 50% test set to determine if a more accurate consensus could be devised. Outcomes of interest were the percent correctly classified images, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for the consensus grade as compared with the expert grading provided with the dataset.
resultsUsing MV grading, the consensus was correct in 75.5% of images (906/1200), with 75.5% sensitivity, 75.5% specificity, and an AUROC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.73-0.78). A logistic regression model using Rasch-weighted individual scores generated an AUROC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93) compared with 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-92) for a model using unweighted scores (chi-square P value<.001). Setting a diagnostic cut-point to optimize sensitivity at 90%, 77.5% (465/600) were graded correctly, with 90.3% sensitivity, 68.5% specificity, and an AUROC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.83).
conclusionsCrowdsourced interpretations of retinal images provide rapid and accurate results as compared with a gold-standard grading. Creating a logistic regression model using Rasch analysis to weight crowdsourced classifications by worker ability improves accuracy of aggregated grades as compared with simple majority vote.
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.