ArticleStatistics in medicine2021
Measuring rater bias in diagnostic tests with ordinal ratings.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy analysis for multiple raters using probit hierarchical model for ordinal ratings.Statistical methods in medical research · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostic tests are frequently reliant upon the interpretation of images by skilled raters. In many clinical settings, however, the variability observed between experts' ratings plays a detrimental role in the degree of confidence in these interpretations, leading to uncertainty in the diagnostic process. For example, in breast cancer testing, radiologists interpret mammographic images, while breast biopsy results are examined by pathologists. Each of these procedures involves elements of subjectivity. We propose here a flexible two-stage Bayesian latent variable model to investigate how the skills of individual raters impact the diagnostic accuracy of image-related testing in large-scale medical testing studies. A strength of the proposed model is that the true disease status of a patient within a reasonable time frame may or may not be known. In these studies, many raters each contribute classifications on a large sample of patients using a defined ordinal grading scale, leading to a complex correlation structure between ratings. Our modeling approach considers the different sources of variability contributed by experts and patients while accounting for correlations present between ratings and patients, in contrast to currently available methods. We propose a novel measure of a rater's ability (magnifier) that, in contrast to conventional measures of sensitivity and specificity, is robust to the underlying prevalence of disease in the population, providing an alternative measure of diagnostic accuracy across patient populations. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate lower bias in estimation of parameters and measures of accuracy, and illustrate outperformance of the proposed model when compared with existing models. Receiver operator characteristic curves are derived to assess the diagnostic accuracy of individual experts and their overall performance. Our proposed modeling approach is applied to a large breast imaging study for known disease status and a uterine cancer dataset for unknown disease status.
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.