ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2020
Statistical evaluation of reader variability in assessing the diagnostic performance of optical coherence tomography.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
significanceOptical coherence tomography (OCT) is widely used as a potential diagnostic tool for a variety of diseases including various types of cancer. However, sensitivity and specificity analyses of OCT in different cancers yield results varying from 11% to 100%. Hence, there is a need for more detailed statistical analysis of blinded reader studies.
aimExtensive statistical analysis is performed on results from a blinded study involving OCT of breast tumor margins to assess the impact of reader variability on sensitivity and specificity. APPROACH: Five readers with varying levels of experience reading OCT images assessed 50 OCT images of breast tumor margins collected using an intraoperative OCT system. Statistical modeling and analysis was performed using the R language to analyze reader experience and variability.
resultsStatistical analysis showed that the readers' prior experience with OCT images was directly related to the probability of the readers' assessment agreeing with histology. Additionally, results from readers with prior experience specific to OCT in breast cancer had a higher probability of agreement with histology compared to readers with experience with OCT in other (noncancer) diseases.
conclusionsThe results from this study demonstrate the potential impact of reader training and experience in the assessment of sensitivity and specificity. They also demonstrate even greater potential improvement in diagnostic performance by combining results from multiple readers. These preliminary findings suggest valuable directions for further study.
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.