OBJECTIVE: Biomedical imaging research relies heavily on the subjective and semi-quantitative reader analysis of images. Current methods are limited by interreader variability and fixed upper and lower limits. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of two assessment methods, pairwise comparison and Likert scale, for improved analysis of biomedical images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of 10 images with varying degrees of image sharpness was created by digitally blurring a normal clinical chest radiograph. Readers assessed the degree of image sharpness using two different methods: pairwise comparison and a 10-point Likert scale. Reader agreement with actual chest radiograph sharpness was calculated for each method by use of the Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). RESULTS: Reader accuracy was highest for pairwise comparison (CCC, 1.0) and ranked Likert (CCC, 0.99) scores and lowest for nonranked Likert scores (CCC, 0.83). Accuracy improved slightly when readers repeated their assessments (CCC, 0.87) or had reference images available (CCC, 0.91). CONCLUSION: Pairwise comparison and ranked Likert scores yield more accurate reader assessments than nonranked Likert scores.
OBJECTIVE: Biomedical imaging research relies heavily on the subjective and semi-quantitative reader analysis of images. Current methods are limited by interreader variability and fixed upper and lower limits. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of two assessment methods, pairwise comparison and Likert scale, for improved analysis of biomedical images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of 10 images with varying degrees of image sharpness was created by digitally blurring a normal clinical chest radiograph. Readers assessed the degree of image sharpness using two different methods: pairwise comparison and a 10-point Likert scale. Reader agreement with actual chest radiograph sharpness was calculated for each method by use of the Lin concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). RESULTS: Reader accuracy was highest for pairwise comparison (CCC, 1.0) and ranked Likert (CCC, 0.99) scores and lowest for nonranked Likert scores (CCC, 0.83). Accuracy improved slightly when readers repeated their assessments (CCC, 0.87) or had reference images available (CCC, 0.91). CONCLUSION: Pairwise comparison and ranked Likert scores yield more accurate reader assessments than nonranked Likert scores.
Authors: Pierpaolo Lupo; Riccardo Cappato; Giovanni Di Leo; Francesco Secchi; Giacomo D E Papini; Sara Foresti; Hussam Ali; Guido M G De Ambroggi; Antonio Sorgente; Gianluca Epicoco; Paola M Cannaò; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; David M Naeger; Jesse L Courtier; Michael D Hope; Jack W Lambert; John D MacKenzie; Andrew S Phelps Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: Hongfeng Ma; Eric Gros; Aniko Szabo; Scott G Baginski; Zachary R Laste; Naveen M Kulkarni; Darin Okerlund; Taly G Schmidt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Juan José Arenas-Jiménez; Elena García-Garrigós; Carmen Escudero-Fresneda; Marina Sirera-Matilla; Irene García-Pastor; Alberto Quirce-Vázquez; Mariana Planells-Alduvin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: David Fällmar; Johan Lilja; Torsten Danfors; Lena Kilander; Victor Iyer; Mark Lubberink; Elna-Marie Larsson; Jens Sörensen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-20