ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2023
Reference-free Bayesian model for pointing errors of typein neurosurgical planning.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2023. 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, 0 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMany neurosurgical planning tasks rely on identifying points of interest in volumetric images. Often, these points require significant expertise to identify correctly as, in some cases, they are not visible but instead inferred by the clinician. This leads to a high degree of variability between annotators selecting these points. In particular, errors of type are when the experts fundamentally select different points rather than the same point with some inaccuracy. This complicates research as their mean may not reflect any of the experts' intentions nor the ground truth.
methodsWe present a regularised Bayesian model for measuring errors of type in pointing tasks. This model is reference-free; in that it does not require a priori knowledge of the ground truth point but instead works on the basis of the level of consensus between multiple annotators. We apply this model to simulated data and clinical data from transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic pain.
resultsOur model estimates the probabilities of selecting the correct point in the range of 82.6[Formula: see text]88.6% with uncertainties in the range of 2.8[Formula: see text]4.0%. This agrees with the literature where ground truth points are known. The uncertainty has not previously been explored in the literature and gives an indication of the dataset's strength.
conclusionsOur reference-free Bayesian framework easily models errors of type in pointing tasks. It allows for clinical studies to be performed with a limited number of annotators where the ground truth is not immediately known, which can be applied widely for better understanding human errors in neurosurgical planning.
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.