ArticleStatistics in medicine2022
Determination of the number of observers needed to evaluate a subjective test and its application in two PD-L1 studies.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Outcomes of HER2-Low Versus HER2-0 Status in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2026Article
- Article
- CONTEST: A generalization of ONEST to estimate sample size for predictive augmented intelligence method validation studies.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted HER2 interpretation for breast cancers in a multi-laboratory study.Gland surgery · 2025Article
- Analytical Validation of Esopredict, an Epigenetic Prognostic Assay for Patients with Barrett's Esophagus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Weakly-supervised deep learning models enable HER2-low prediction from H &E stained slides.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Article
- Measuring disability among U.S. adolescents and young adults: A survey measurement experiment.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Multi-Institutional Study of Pathologist Reading of the Programmed Cell Death Ligand-1 Combined Positive Score Immunohistochemistry Assay for Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2023Article
- The Evolution of Ki-67 and Breast Carcinoma: Past Observations, Present Directions, and Future Considerations.Cancers · 2023Review
- Multi-institutional Assessment of Pathologist Scoring HER2 Immunohistochemistry.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2023Article
- Development of an immunohistochemical assay for Siglec-15.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In pathological studies, subjective assays, especially companion diagnostic tests, can dramatically affect treatment of cancer. Binary diagnostic test results (ie, positive vs negative) may vary between pathologists or observers who read the tumor slides. Some tests have clearly defined criteria resulting in highly concordant outcomes, even with minimal training. Other tests are more challenging. Observers may achieve poor concordance even with training. While there are many statistically rigorous methods for measuring concordance between observers, we are unaware of a method that can identify how many observers are needed to determine whether a test can reach an acceptable concordance, if at all. Here we introduce a statistical approach to the assessment of test performance when the test is read by multiple observers, as would occur in the real world. By plotting the number of observers against the estimated overall agreement proportion, we can obtain a curve that plateaus to the average observer concordance. Diagnostic tests that are well-defined and easily judged show high concordance and plateau with few interobserver comparisons. More challenging tests do not plateau until many interobserver comparisons are made, and typically reach a lower plateau or even 0. We further propose a statistical test of whether the overall agreement proportion will drop to 0 with a large number of pathologists. The proposed analytical framework can be used to evaluate the difficulty in the interpretation of pathological test criteria and platforms, and to determine how pathology-based subjective tests will perform in the real world. The method could also be used outside of pathology, where concordance of a diagnosis or decision point relies on the subjective application of multiple criteria. We apply this method in two recent PD-L1 studies to test whether the curve of overall agreement proportion will converge to 0 and determine the minimal sufficient number of observers required to estimate the concordance plateau of their reads.
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.