Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33969509›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2021

Measuring rater bias in diagnostic tests with ordinal ratings.

Chanmin Kim, Xiaoyan Lin, Kerrie P Nelson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Chanmin KimDepartment of Statistics, SungKyunKwan University, Jongno-gu, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2588-6704
Xiaoyan LinDepartment of Statistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2348-7977
Kerrie P NelsonDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1195-8105
Boston University · USSungkyunkwan University · KRUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

Improving Accuracy and Reliability in Cancer Screening TestsR01CA226805 · NCI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI NELSON, KERRIE P · 2018 to 2021
$1.2M
Model Agreement in Cancer Diagnostic TestsR01CA172463 · NCI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI NELSON, KERRIE P · 2014 to 2017
$995k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA172463NCI NIH HHS R01 CA226805
6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMammographyObserver VariationBayesian latent variable modelbreast imagingdiagnostic testordinal ratingsROC curvevariability

Identifiers

PMID33969509
PMCPMC8277718
OpenAlexW3162134018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.