ArticleJournal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
Observer Variability in CT Angiography Carotid Segmentation: Assessing Variability to Set Minimum Clinical Performance.
Article in Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThis work evaluates carotid atherosclerosis quantification from computed tomography angiography (CTA), by novice and expert human contours. Variability sources are critically assessed to establish the minimum performance of future machine learning (ML) tools.
methodsWe analyzed extra cranial carotid lesions, with no, mild, moderate, and severe atherosclerosis (n = 10/group). CTA datasets of 24 patients (n = 6/group) were re-sampled to 2.5 mm axial thicknesses. Lumen, calcific plaque, and soft plaque were manually contoured by three expert experienced clinicians (neuroradiologist, vascular neurologist, and vascular surgeon), a medical physicist (MP), and a radiographer. Contouring was repeated several months later for intra-operator variability and again after development of a protocol. Clinicians blindly ranked each other's contours for descriptive statistical analysis.
resultsRelative to internal carotid origin, plaque began a median of 3.75 mm inferior (Interquartile Range [IQR] 0.8-7 mm), extended 18 mm superior (IQR: 13.0-29.6 mm), with a median total length of 24.4 mm (IQR: 14.7-37.4 mm). Clinicians and non-clinicians contoured lumen and calcific plaque similarly (dice similarity coefficient [DSC]: 0.87/0.62 respectively), but varied greater for soft plaque (DSC: 0.21). Neuroradiologist contours were consistently smaller, from approaching the partial-volume artifact conservatively. Clinicians favored their own contours, most pronouncedly the neuroradiologist (standard deviation: 0.00). Establishing a contouring protocol was not found to improve the agreement between clinicians.
conclusionsCTA carotid pathology contouring inherently has limited clinician agreement due to small structure size and poor contrast. The reference-contour datasets produced by experienced clinicians are prone to inter-and intra-variability which must be carefully considered to ensure ML models developed from such datasets are not fatally flawed.
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.