ArticlePloS one2025
Verity plots: A novel method of visualizing reliability assessments of artificial intelligence methods in quantitative cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) methods have established themselves in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) as automated quantification tools for ventricular volumes, function, and myocardial tissue characterization. Quality assurance approaches focus on measuring and controlling AI-expert differences but there is a need for tools that better communicate reliability and agreement. This study introduces the Verity plot, a novel statistical visualization that communicates the reliability of quantitative parameters (QP) with clear agreement criteria and descriptive statistics.
methodsTolerance ranges for the acceptability of the bias and variance of AI-expert differences were derived from intra- and interreader evaluations. AI-expert agreement was defined by bias confidence and variance tolerance intervals being within bias and variance tolerance ranges. A reliability plot was designed to communicate this statistical test for agreement. Verity plots merge reliability plots with density and a scatter plot to illustrate AI-expert differences. Their utility was compared against Correlation, Box and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsBias and variance tolerance ranges were established for volume, function, and myocardial tissue characterization QPs. Verity plots provided insights into statstistcal properties, outlier detection, and parametric test assumptions, outperforming Correlation, Box and Bland-Altman plots. Additionally, they offered a framework for determining the acceptability of AI-expert bias and variance.
conclusionVerity plots offer markers for bias, variance, trends and outliers, in addition to deciding AI quantification acceptability. The plots were successfully applied to various AI methods in CMR and decisively communicated AI-expert agreement.
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.