Literature DB >> 26975497

Methods for the analysis of ordinal response data in medical image quality assessment.

Claire Keeble1,2, Paul D Baxter1, Amber J Gislason-Lee2, Laura A Treadgold2, Andrew G Davies2.   

Abstract

The assessment of image quality in medical imaging often requires observers to rate images for some metric or detectability task. These subjective results are used in optimization, radiation dose reduction or system comparison studies and may be compared to objective measures from a computer vision algorithm performing the same task. One popular scoring approach is to use a Likert scale, then assign consecutive numbers to the categories. The mean of these response values is then taken and used for comparison with the objective or second subjective response. Agreement is often assessed using correlation coefficients. We highlight a number of weaknesses in this common approach, including inappropriate analyses of ordinal data and the inability to properly account for correlations caused by repeated images or observers. We suggest alternative data collection and analysis techniques such as amendments to the scale and multilevel proportional odds models. We detail the suitability of each approach depending upon the data structure and demonstrate each method using a medical imaging example. Whilst others have raised some of these issues, we evaluated the entire study from data collection to analysis, suggested sources for software and further reading, and provided a checklist plus flowchart for use with any ordinal data. We hope that raised awareness of the limitations of the current approaches will encourage greater method consideration and the utilization of a more appropriate analysis. More accurate comparisons between measures in medical imaging will lead to a more robust contribution to the imaging literature and ultimately improved patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26975497      PMCID: PMC5257322          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160094

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  23 in total

1.  Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography.

Authors:  M Sandborg; A Tingberg; D R Dance; B Lanhede; A Almén; G McVey; P Sund; S Kheddache; J Besjakov; S Mattsson; L G Månsson; G Alm Carlsson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models.

Authors:  Michael A Babyak
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.312

3.  Quantifying the potential for dose reduction with visual grading regression.

Authors:  O Smedby; M Fredrikson; J De Geer; L Borgen; M Sandborg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Effect of increasing body mass index on image quality and positive predictive value of 100-kV coronary computed tomographic angiography.

Authors:  John S Ho; Carolyn E Barlow; Dale B Reinhardt; Wendy A Wade; John J Cannaday
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 2.778

5.  On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.

Authors:  S S Stevens
Journal:  Science       Date:  1946-06-07       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Paediatric x-ray radiation dose reduction and image quality analysis.

Authors:  L Martin; R Ruddlesden; C Makepeace; L Robinson; T Mistry; H Starritt
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 1.394

7.  Correlation of the clinical and physical image quality in chest radiography for average adults with a computed radiography imaging system.

Authors:  C S Moore; T J Wood; A W Beavis; J R Saunderson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Image-scoring system for crown-rump length measurement.

Authors:  S Z Wanyonyi; R Napolitano; E O Ohuma; L J Salomon; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 7.299

Review 9.  Rating satisfaction research: is it poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent?

Authors:  M T Di Palo
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res       Date:  1997-12

10.  Reduction of absorbed dose in storage phosphor urography by significant lowering of tube voltage and adjustment of image display parameters.

Authors:  H J Wiltz; U Petersen; B Axelsson
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.990

View more
  5 in total

1.  Can image enhancement allow radiation dose to be reduced whilst maintaining the perceived diagnostic image quality required for coronary angiography?

Authors:  Anuja Joshi; Amber J Gislason-Lee; Claire Keeble; Uduvil M Sivananthan; Andrew G Davies
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Comprehensive assessment of patient image quality and radiation dose in latest generation cardiac x-ray equipment for percutaneous coronary interventions.

Authors:  Amber J Gislason-Lee; Claire Keeble; Daniel Egleston; Josephine Bexon; Stephen M Kengyelics; Andrew G Davies
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-05-02

3.  Optimisation of tube voltage range (kVp) for AP abdomen, pelvis and spine imaging of average patients with a digital radiography (DR) imaging system using a computer simulator.

Authors:  Craig Steven Moore; Tim Wood; Stephen Balcam; Liam Needler; Tim Guest; Wee Ping Ngu; Lee Wun Chong; John Saunderson; Andrew Beavis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Impact of latest generation cardiac interventional X-ray equipment on patient image quality and radiation dose for trans-catheter aortic valve implantations.

Authors:  Amber J Gislason-Lee; Claire Keeble; Christoper J Malkin; Daniel Egleston; Josephine Bexon; Stephen M Kengyelics; Daniel Blackman; Andrew G Davies
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Use of a computer simulator to investigate optimized tube voltage for chest imaging of average patients with a digital radiography (DR) imaging system.

Authors:  Craig Steven Moore; Tim Wood; Ged Avery; Steve Balcam; Liam Needler; Hiten Joshi; Najeeb Ahmed; John Saunderson; Andrew Beavis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 3.039

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.