Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32550600›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Imaging cancer2020

Interreader Variability in Semantic Annotation of Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Contrast-enhanced Triphasic CT Images.

Shaimaa Bakr, Olivier Gevaert, Bhavik Patel, Andrew Kesselman, Rajesh Shah, Sandy Napel, Nishita Kothary

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observer Variability in CT Angiography Carotid Segmentation: Assessing Variability to Set Minimum Clinical Performance.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shaimaa BakrDepartments of Electrical Engineering (S.B.) and Radiology (O.G., B.P., R.S., S.N.), Stanford University, James H. Clark Center, 318 Campus Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5450; Department of Radiology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (N.K.).ORCID 0000-0002-8967-0881
Olivier GevaertDepartments of Electrical Engineering (S.B.) and Radiology (O.G., B.P., R.S., S.N.), Stanford University, James H. Clark Center, 318 Campus Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5450; Department of Radiology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (N.K.).ORCID 0000-0002-9965-5466
Bhavik PatelDepartments of Electrical Engineering (S.B.) and Radiology (O.G., B.P., R.S., S.N.), Stanford University, James H. Clark Center, 318 Campus Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5450; Department of Radiology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (N.K.).ORCID 0000-0001-5157-9903
Andrew KesselmanDepartments of Electrical Engineering (S.B.) and Radiology (O.G., B.P., R.S., S.N.), Stanford University, James H. Clark Center, 318 Campus Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5450; Department of Radiology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (N.K.).
Rajesh ShahDepartments of Electrical Engineering (S.B.) and Radiology (O.G., B.P., R.S., S.N.), Stanford University, James H. Clark Center, 318 Campus Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5450; Department of Radiology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (N.K.).
Sandy NapelDepartments of Electrical Engineering (S.B.) and Radiology (O.G., B.P., R.S., S.N.), Stanford University, James H. Clark Center, 318 Campus Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5450; Department of Radiology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (N.K.).
Nishita KotharyDepartments of Electrical Engineering (S.B.) and Radiology (O.G., B.P., R.S., S.N.), Stanford University, James H. Clark Center, 318 Campus Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5450; Department of Radiology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY (A.K.); and Department of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif (N.K.).
Stanford University · US

Funding

Qualification and Deployment of Imaging Biomarkers of Cancer Treatment ResponseU01CA190214 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2015 to 2020
$3.1M
Computing, Optimizing, and Evaluating Quantitative Cancer Imaging BiomarkersU01CA187947 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI NAPEL, SANDY A., RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA187947NCI NIH HHS U01 CA190214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate interreader agreement in annotating semantic features on preoperative CT images to predict microvascular invasion (MVI) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: Preoperative, contrast material-enhanced triphasic CT studies from 89 patients (median age, 64 years; age range, 36-85 years; 70 men) who underwent hepatic resection between 2008 and 2017 for a solitary HCC were reviewed. Three radiologists annotated CT images obtained during the arterial and portal venous phases, independently and in consensus, with features associated with MVI reported by other investigators. The assessed factors were the presence or absence of discrete internal arteries, hypoattenuating halo, tumor-liver difference, peritumoral enhancement, and tumor margin. Testing also included previously proposed MVI signatures: radiogenomic venous invasion (RVI) and two-trait predictor of venous invasion (TTPVI), using single-reader and consensus annotations. Cohen (two-reader) and Fleiss (three-reader) κ and the bootstrap method were used to analyze interreader agreement and differences in model performance, respectively. Results: Of HCCs assessed, 32.6% (29 of 89) had MVI at histopathologic findings. Two-reader agreement, as assessed by pairwise Cohen κ statistics, varied as a function of feature and imaging phase, ranging from 0.02 to 0.6; three-reader Fleiss κ varied from -0.17 to 0.56. For RVI and TTPVI, the best single-reader performance had sensitivity and specificity of 52% and 77% and 67% and 74%, respectively. In consensus, the sensitivity and specificity for the RVI and TTPVI signatures were 59% and 67% and 70% and 62%, respectively. Conclusion: Interreader variability in semantic feature annotation remains a challenge and affects the reproducibility of predictive models for preoperative detection of MVI in HCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSemanticsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID32550600
PMCPMC7263284
OpenAlexW3029745433

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.