Literature DB >> 25300725

Testing for interchangeability of imaging tests.

Nancy A Obuchowski1, Naveen Subhas2, Paul Schoenhagen3.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: New tests are typically assessed by estimating their technical and diagnostic performance through comparisons with a reference standard. A valid reference standard, however, is not always available and is not required for assessing the interchangeability of a new test with an existing one.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: To show interchangeability of a new test with an existing test, one compares the differences in diagnoses between the new and existing tests to differences between diagnoses made with the existing test on several occasions. We illustrate the test for interchangeability with two studies. In a transcatheter aortic valve replacement study, we test whether semiautomated analysis can be used interchangeably with manual reconstructions from three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) images. In patients with femoroacetabular impingement, we test whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can replace CT to measure acetabular version.
RESULTS: Although the semiautomated method agreed often with the manual measurement of aortic valve size (87.6%), interchanging the semiautomated method with manual measurements by an expert would lead to a 1.7%-12.2% increase in the frequency of disagreement. Interchanging MRI for CT to measure acetabular version would lead to differences in angle measurements of 2.0° to 3.1° in excess of the differences we would expect to see with CT alone.
CONCLUSIONS: Testing for agreement or correlation between a new and an existing test is not sufficient evidence of the performance of a new test. A formal evaluation of interchangeability can be conducted in the absence of a reference standard.
Copyright © 2014 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reference standard; accuracy; agreement; correlation; interchangeability

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25300725     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.07.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  7 in total

1.  Semi-automatic CT-angiography based evaluation of the aortic annulus in patients prior to TAVR: interchangeability with manual measurements.

Authors:  Dominik Zinsser; Alena B Baumann; Katharina Stella Winter; Fabian Bamberg; Philipp Lange; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian Reiser; Christian Kupatt; Thomas Kröncke; Florian Schwarz
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 2.357

2.  CAIPIRINHA-accelerated 10-min 3D TSE MRI of the ankle for the diagnosis of painful ankle conditions: Performance evaluation in 70 patients.

Authors:  Benjamin Fritz; Susanne Bensler; Gaurav K Thawait; Esther Raithel; Steven E Stern; Jan Fritz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Comparison of a fast 5-min knee MRI protocol with a standard knee MRI protocol: a multi-institutional multi-reader study.

Authors:  Erin FitzGerald Alaia; Alex Benedick; Nancy A Obuchowski; Joshua M Polster; Luis S Beltran; Jean Schils; Elisabeth Garwood; Christopher J Burke; I-Yuan Joseph Chang; Soterios Gyftopoulos; Naveen Subhas
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Advancing machine learning for MR image reconstruction with an open competition: Overview of the 2019 fastMRI challenge.

Authors:  Florian Knoll; Tullie Murrell; Anuroop Sriram; Nafissa Yakubova; Jure Zbontar; Michael Rabbat; Aaron Defazio; Matthew J Muckley; Daniel K Sodickson; C Lawrence Zitnick; Michael P Recht
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2020-06-07       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  A Deep Learning System for Synthetic Knee Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Is Artificial Intelligence-Based Fat-Suppressed Imaging Feasible?

Authors:  Laura M Fayad; Vishwa S Parekh; Rodrigo de Castro Luna; Charles C Ko; Dharmesh Tank; Jan Fritz; Shivani Ahlawat; Michael A Jacobs
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 10.065

6.  MRI of non-specific low back pain and/or lumbar radiculopathy: do we need T1 when using a sagittal T2-weighted Dixon sequence?

Authors:  Fabio Zanchi; Raphaël Richard; Mahmoud Hussami; Arnaud Monier; Jean-François Knebel; Patrick Omoumi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Nodule Classification on Low-Dose Unenhanced CT and Standard-Dose Enhanced CT: Inter-Protocol Agreement and Analysis of Interchangeability.

Authors:  Kyung Hee Lee; Kyung Won Lee; Ji Hoon Park; Kyunghwa Han; Jihang Kim; Sang Min Lee; Chang Min Park
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 3.500

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.