J Peter Campbell1, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer2, Deniz Erdogmus3, Peng Tian3, Dharanish Kedarisetti3, Chace Moleta1, James D Reynolds4, Kelly Hutcheson5, Michael J Shapiro6, Michael X Repka7, Philip Ferrone8, Kimberly Drenser9, Jason Horowitz10, Kemal Sonmez11, Ryan Swan11, Susan Ostmo1, Karyn E Jonas12, R V Paul Chan12, Michael F Chiang13. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 2. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 3. Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Ross Eye Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Sidra Medical & Research Center, Doha, Qatar. 6. Retina Consultants, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Wilmer Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. Long Island Vitreoretinal Consultants, Great Neck, New York. 9. Associated Retinal Consultants, Oakland University, Royal Oak, Michigan. 10. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York. 11. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 12. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 13. Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: chiangm@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify patterns of interexpert discrepancy in plus disease diagnosis in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). DESIGN: We developed 2 datasets of clinical images as part of the Imaging and Informatics in ROP study and determined a consensus reference standard diagnosis (RSD) for each image based on 3 independent image graders and the clinical examination results. We recruited 8 expert ROP clinicians to classify these images and compared the distribution of classifications between experts and the RSD. PARTICIPANTS: Eight participating experts with more than 10 years of clinical ROP experience and more than 5 peer-reviewed ROP publications who analyzed images obtained during routine ROP screening in neonatal intensive care units. METHODS: Expert classification of images of plus disease in ROP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interexpert agreement (weighted κ statistic) and agreement and bias on ordinal classification between experts (analysis of variance [ANOVA]) and the RSD (percent agreement). RESULTS: There was variable interexpert agreement on diagnostic classifications between the 8 experts and the RSD (weighted κ, 0-0.75; mean, 0.30). The RSD agreement ranged from 80% to 94% for the dataset of 100 images and from 29% to 79% for the dataset of 34 images. However, when images were ranked in order of disease severity (by average expert classification), the pattern of expert classification revealed a consistent systematic bias for each expert consistent with unique cut points for the diagnosis of plus disease and preplus disease. The 2-way ANOVA model suggested a highly significant effect of both image and user on the average score (dataset A: P < 0.05 and adjusted R2 = 0.82; and dataset B: P < 0.05 and adjusted R2 = 0.6615). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in the classification of plus disease by ROP experts, which occurs because experts have different cut points for the amounts of vascular abnormality required for presence of plus and preplus disease. This has important implications for research, teaching, and patient care for ROP and suggests that a continuous ROP plus disease severity score may reflect more accurately the behavior of expert ROP clinicians and may better standardize classification in the future.
PURPOSE: To identify patterns of interexpert discrepancy in plus disease diagnosis in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). DESIGN: We developed 2 datasets of clinical images as part of the Imaging and Informatics in ROP study and determined a consensus reference standard diagnosis (RSD) for each image based on 3 independent image graders and the clinical examination results. We recruited 8 expert ROP clinicians to classify these images and compared the distribution of classifications between experts and the RSD. PARTICIPANTS: Eight participating experts with more than 10 years of clinical ROP experience and more than 5 peer-reviewed ROP publications who analyzed images obtained during routine ROP screening in neonatal intensive care units. METHODS: Expert classification of images of plus disease in ROP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interexpert agreement (weighted κ statistic) and agreement and bias on ordinal classification between experts (analysis of variance [ANOVA]) and the RSD (percent agreement). RESULTS: There was variable interexpert agreement on diagnostic classifications between the 8 experts and the RSD (weighted κ, 0-0.75; mean, 0.30). The RSD agreement ranged from 80% to 94% for the dataset of 100 images and from 29% to 79% for the dataset of 34 images. However, when images were ranked in order of disease severity (by average expert classification), the pattern of expert classification revealed a consistent systematic bias for each expert consistent with unique cut points for the diagnosis of plus disease and preplus disease. The 2-way ANOVA model suggested a highly significant effect of both image and user on the average score (dataset A: P < 0.05 and adjusted R2 = 0.82; and dataset B: P < 0.05 and adjusted R2 = 0.6615). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in the classification of plus disease by ROP experts, which occurs because experts have different cut points for the amounts of vascular abnormality required for presence of plus and preplus disease. This has important implications for research, teaching, and patient care for ROP and suggests that a continuous ROP plus disease severity score may reflect more accurately the behavior of expert ROP clinicians and may better standardize classification in the future.
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Michele Melia; Angela N Buffenn; Scott R Lambert; Franco M Recchia; Jennifer L Simpson; Michael B Yang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Lu Wang; Mihai Busuioc; Yunling E Du; Patrick Chan; Steven A Kane; Thomas C Lee; David J Weissgold; Audina M Berrocal; Osode Coki; John T Flynn; Justin Starren Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2007-11
Authors: J Peter Campbell; Michael C Ryan; Emily Lore; Peng Tian; Susan Ostmo; Karyn Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: R V Paul Chan; Steven L Williams; Yoshihiro Yonekawa; David J Weissgold; Thomas C Lee; Michael F Chiang Journal: Retina Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Steven L Williams; Lu Wang; Steven A Kane; Thomas C Lee; David J Weissgold; Audina M Berrocal; Daniel Rabinowitz; Justin Starren; John T Flynn; Michael F Chiang Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Graham E Quinn; Gui-shuang Ying; Ebenezer Daniel; P Lloyd Hildebrand; Anna Ells; Agnieshka Baumritter; Alex R Kemper; Eleanor B Schron; Kelly Wade Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Esra Ataer-Cansizoglu; Veronica Bolon-Canedo; J Peter Campbell; Alican Bozkurt; Deniz Erdogmus; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Samir Patel; Karyn Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Susan Ostmo; Michael F Chiang Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Chace Moleta; J Peter Campbell; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; R V Paul Chan; Susan Ostmo; Karyn Jonas; Michael F Chiang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Hilal Biten; Travis K Redd; Chace Moleta; J Peter Campbell; Susan Ostmo; Karyn Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Dana Darwish; Ru-Ik Chee; Samir N Patel; Karyn Jonas; Susan Ostmo; J Peter Campbell; Michael F Chiang; R V Paul Chan Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2018-05-29
Authors: Layla Ghergherehchi; Sang Jin Kim; J Peter Campbell; Susan Ostmo; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2018-05-24
Authors: Rene Y Choi; James M Brown; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; R V Paul Chan; Susan Ostmo; Michael F Chiang; J Peter Campbell Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2020-05-04
Authors: James M Brown; J Peter Campbell; Andrew Beers; Ken Chang; Susan Ostmo; R V Paul Chan; Jennifer Dy; Deniz Erdogmus; Stratis Ioannidis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Michael F Chiang Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Travis K Redd; John Peter Campbell; James M Brown; Sang Jin Kim; Susan Ostmo; Robison Vernon Paul Chan; Jennifer Dy; Deniz Erdogmus; Stratis Ioannidis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Michael F Chiang Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; J Peter Campbell; Deniz Erdogmus; Peng Tian; Dharanish Kedarisetti; Chace Moleta; James D Reynolds; Kelly Hutcheson; Michael J Shapiro; Michael X Repka; Philip Ferrone; Kimberly Drenser; Jason Horowitz; Kemal Sonmez; Ryan Swan; Susan Ostmo; Karyn E Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 12.079