Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35174064›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Exploring the Interobserver Agreement in Computer-Aided Radiologic Tumor Measurement and Evaluation of Tumor Response.

Hongsen Li, Jiaying Shen, Jiawei Shou, Weidong Han, Liu Gong, Yiming Xu, Peng Chen, Kaixin Wang, Shuangfeng Zhang, Chao Sun and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Hongsen LiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Jiaying ShenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Jiawei ShouDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Weidong HanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Liu GongDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Yiming XuQuantilogic Healthcare Zhejiang Co. Ltd, Hangzhou, China.
Peng ChenSchool of Medical Imaging, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Kaixin WangSchool of Medical Imaging, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Shuangfeng ZhangSchool of Medical Imaging, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Chao SunSchool of Medical Imaging, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Jie ZhangSchool of Medical Imaging, Shanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Zhongfeng NiuDepartment of Radiology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Hongming PanDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Wenli CaiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Yong FangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital · CNShanghai University of Medicine and Health Sciences · CNZhejiang University · CNMassachusetts General Hospital · USZhejiang Medicine (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accurate, objective, and reproducible evaluation of tumor response to therapy is indispensable in clinical trials. This study aimed at investigating the reliability and reproducibility of a computer-aided contouring (CAC) tool in tumor measurements and its impact on evaluation of tumor response in terms of RECIST 1.1 criteria. A total of 200 cancer patients were retrospectively collected in this study, which were randomly divided into two sets of 100 patients for experiential learning and testing. A total of 744 target lesions were identified by a senior radiologist in distinctive body parts, of which 278 lesions were in data set 1 (learning set) and 466 lesions were in data set 2 (testing set). Five image analysts were respectively instructed to measure lesion diameter using manual and CAC tools in data set 1 and subsequently tested in data set 2. The interobserver variability of tumor measurements was validated by using the coefficient of variance (CV), the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), and the interobserver correlation coefficient (ICC). We verified that the mean CV of manual measurement remained constant between the learning and testing data sets (0.33 vs. 0.32,

Indexed as

evaluation agreementmeasurement variabilityresponse evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST)treatment assessmenttumor measurements

Identifiers

PMID35174064
PMCPMC8841678
OpenAlexW4210697840

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.