Literature DB >> 23526701

In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging.

Frezghi Habte1, Shradha Budhiraja, Shay Keren, Timothy C Doyle, Craig S Levin, David S Paik.   

Abstract

We estimated reader-dependent variability of region of interest (ROI) analysis and evaluated its impact on preclinical quantitative molecular imaging. To estimate reader variability, we used five independent image datasets acquired each using microPET and multispectral fluorescence imaging (MSFI). We also selected ten experienced researchers who utilize molecular imaging in the same environment that they typically perform their own studies. Nine investigators blinded to the data type completed the ROI analysis by drawing ROIs manually that delineate the tumor regions to the best of their knowledge and repeated the measurements three times, non-consecutively. Extracted mean intensities of voxels within each ROI are used to compute the coefficient of variation (CV) and characterize the inter- and intra-reader variability. The impact of variability was assessed through random samples iterated from normal distributions for control and experimental groups on hypothesis testing and computing statistical power by varying subject size, measured difference between groups and CV. The results indicate that inter-reader variability was 22.5% for microPET and 72.2% for MSFI. Additionally, mean intra-reader variability was 10.1% for microPET and 26.4% for MSFI. Repeated statistical testing showed that a total variability of CV < 50% may be needed to detect differences < 50% between experimental and control groups when six subjects (n = 6) or more are used and statistical power is adequate (80%). Surprisingly high variability has been observed mainly due to differences in the ROI placement and geometry drawn between readers, which may adversely affect statistical power and erroneously lead to negative study outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Molecular imaging; microPET; multispectral fluorescence imaging; preclinical; region of interest analysis; variability

Year:  2013        PMID: 23526701      PMCID: PMC3601477     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging


  21 in total

1.  Validation in medical image processing.

Authors:  Pierre Jannin; Elizabeth Krupinski; Simon Warfield
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 2.  Quantitative imaging with the micro-PET small-animal PET tomograph.

Authors:  Paul Vaska; Daniel J Rubins; David L Alexoff; Wynne K Schiffer
Journal:  Int Rev Neurobiol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.230

3.  Usefulness of 3'-[F-18]fluoro-3'-deoxythymidine with positron emission tomography in predicting breast cancer response to therapy.

Authors:  Betty S Pio; Cecilia K Park; Richard Pietras; Wei-Ann Hsueh; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Mark D Pegram; Johannes Czernin; Michael E Phelps; Daniel H S Silverman
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  The impact of quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery: Charting our course for the future.

Authors:  Yi-Xiang J Wang; Chin K Ng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2011-12

5.  Quantitative bone metastases analysis based on image segmentation.

Authors:  Y E Erdi; J L Humm; M Imbriaco; H Yeung; S M Larson
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 10.057

6.  Metabolic imaging predicts response, survival, and recurrence in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Katja Ott; Wolfgang A Weber; Florian Lordick; Karen Becker; Raymonde Busch; Ken Herrmann; Hinrich Wieder; Ulrich Fink; Markus Schwaiger; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-09-11       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Molecular imaging of active mutant L858R EGF receptor (EGFR) kinase-expressing nonsmall cell lung carcinomas using PET/CT.

Authors:  Hsin Hsien Yeh; Kazuma Ogawa; Julius Balatoni; Uday Mukhapadhyay; Asutosh Pal; Carlos Gonzalez-Lepera; Aleksandr Shavrin; Suren Soghomonyan; Leo Flores; Daniel Young; Andrei Y Volgin; Amer M Najjar; Victor Krasnykh; William Tong; Mian M Alauddin; Juri G Gelovani
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Impact of animal handling on the results of 18F-FDG PET studies in mice.

Authors:  Barbara J Fueger; Johannes Czernin; Isabel Hildebrandt; Chris Tran; Benjamin S Halpern; David Stout; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 10.057

9.  Exogenous gene expression in tumors: noninvasive quantification with functional and anatomic imaging in a mouse model.

Authors:  Dan Yang; Lin Han; Vikas Kundra
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Quantitation of cell number by a positron emission tomography reporter gene strategy.

Authors:  Helen Su; Ashley Forbes; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Jonathan Braun
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.488

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative imaging biomarker ontology (QIBO) for knowledge representation of biomedical imaging biomarkers.

Authors:  Andrew J Buckler; Tiffany Ting Liu; Erica Savig; Baris E Suzek; M Ouellette; J Danagoulian; G Wernsing; Daniel L Rubin; David Paik
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Radiologic-pathologic analysis of quantitative 3D tumour enhancement on contrast-enhanced MR imaging: a study of ROI placement.

Authors:  Arun Chockalingam; Rafael Duran; Jae Ho Sohn; Rüdiger Schernthaner; Julius Chapiro; Howard Lee; Sonia Sahu; Sonny Nguyen; Jean-François Geschwind; MingDe Lin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Super U-Net: a modularized generalizable architecture.

Authors:  Cameron Beeche; Jatin P Singh; Joseph K Leader; Sinem Gezer; Amechi P Oruwari; Kunal K Dansingani; Jay Chhablani; Jiantao Pu
Journal:  Pattern Recognit       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 8.518

Review 4.  Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment.

Authors:  David L Raunig; Lisa M McShane; Gene Pennello; Constantine Gatsonis; Paul L Carson; James T Voyvodic; Richard L Wahl; Brenda F Kurland; Adam J Schwarz; Mithat Gönen; Gudrun Zahlmann; Marina V Kondratovich; Kevin O'Donnell; Nicholas Petrick; Patricia E Cole; Brian Garra; Daniel C Sullivan
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 5.  FDG-PET imaging in mild traumatic brain injury: a critical review.

Authors:  Kimberly R Byrnes; Colin M Wilson; Fiona Brabazon; Ramona von Leden; Jennifer S Jurgens; Terrence R Oakes; Reed G Selwyn
Journal:  Front Neuroenergetics       Date:  2014-01-09

6.  Automatic and fast segmentation of breast region-of-interest (ROI) and density in MRIs.

Authors:  Dinesh Pandey; Xiaoxia Yin; Hua Wang; Min-Ying Su; Jeon-Hor Chen; Jianlin Wu; Yanchun Zhang
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2018-12-17

7.  Interreader Variability of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI of Recurrent Glioblastoma: The Multicenter ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625 Study.

Authors:  Daniel P Barboriak; Zheng Zhang; Pratikkumar Desai; Bradley S Snyder; Yair Safriel; Robert C McKinstry; Felix Bokstein; Gregory Sorensen; Mark R Gilbert; Jerrold L Boxerman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 29.146

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.