Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33145661›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2020

Beyond kappa: an informational index for diagnostic agreement in dichotomous and multivalue ordered-categorical ratings.

Alberto Casagrande, Francesco Fabris, Rossano Girometti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Machine learning and new insights for breast cancer diagnosis.The Journal of international medical research · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

3 authors.

Alberto CasagrandeDipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Francesco FabrisDipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste, Italy. ffabris@units.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1950-8838
Rossano GiromettiDipartimento di Area Medica, Istituto di Radiologia, Ospedale S. Maria della Misericordia, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy.

Funding

Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica "Francesco Severi" (IT) -
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agreement measures are useful tools to both compare different evaluations of the same diagnostic outcomes and validate new rating systems or devices. Cohen's kappa (κ) certainly is the most popular agreement method between two raters, and proved its effectiveness in the last sixty years. In spite of that, this method suffers from some alleged issues, which have been highlighted since the 1970s; moreover, its value is strongly dependent on the prevalence of the disease in the considered sample. This work introduces a new agreement index, the informational agreement (IA), which seems to avoid some of Cohen's kappa's flaws, and separates the contribution of the prevalence from the nucleus of agreement. These goals are achieved by modelling the agreement-in both dichotomous and multivalue ordered-categorical cases-as the information shared between two raters through the virtual diagnostic channel connecting them: the more information exchanged between the raters, the higher their agreement. In order to test its fair behaviour and the effectiveness of the method, IA has been tested on some cases known to be problematic for κ, in the machine learning context and in a clinical scenario to compare ultrasound (US) and automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in the setting of breast cancer imaging. Graphical Abstract To evaluate the agreement between the two raters [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] we create an agreement channel, based on Shannon Information Theory, that directly connects the random variables X and Y, that express the raters outcomes. They are the terminals of the chain X⇔ diagnostic test performed by [Formula: see text] ⇔ patient condition[Formula: see text] ⇔ diagnostic test performed by [Formula: see text] ⇔ Y.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonographyCohen’s kappa statisticDiagnostic agreementInformation measuresInter-reader agreementMultivalue ordered-categorical ratings

Identifiers

PMID33145661
PMCPMC7679268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.