Literature DB >> 28612356

Assessing the influence of rater and subject characteristics on measures of agreement for ordinal ratings.

Kerrie P Nelson1, Aya A Mitani1, Don Edwards2.   

Abstract

Widespread inconsistencies are commonly observed between physicians' ordinal classifications in screening tests results such as mammography. These discrepancies have motivated large-scale agreement studies where many raters contribute ratings. The primary goal of these studies is to identify factors related to physicians and patients' test results, which may lead to stronger consistency between raters' classifications. While ordered categorical scales are frequently used to classify screening test results, very few statistical approaches exist to model agreement between multiple raters. Here we develop a flexible and comprehensive approach to assess the influence of rater and subject characteristics on agreement between multiple raters' ordinal classifications in large-scale agreement studies. Our approach is based upon the class of generalized linear mixed models. Novel summary model-based measures are proposed to assess agreement between all, or a subgroup of raters, such as experienced physicians. Hypothesis tests are described to formally identify factors such as physicians' level of experience that play an important role in improving consistency of ratings between raters. We demonstrate how unique characteristics of individual raters can be assessed via conditional modes generated during the modeling process. Simulation studies are presented to demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods and summary measure of agreement. The methods are applied to a large-scale mammography agreement study to investigate the effects of rater and patient characteristics on the strength of agreement between radiologists.
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agreement; covariates; generalized linear mixed models; multiple raters; ordinal classifications

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28612356      PMCID: PMC5540881          DOI: 10.1002/sim.7323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  23 in total

Review 1.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  The exact variance of weighted kappa with multiple raters.

Authors:  Paul W Mielke; Kenneth J Berry; Janis E Johnston
Journal:  Psychol Rep       Date:  2007-10

Review 3.  Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution.

Authors:  Benjamin M Bolker; Mollie E Brooks; Connie J Clark; Shane W Geange; John R Poulsen; M Henry H Stevens; Jada-Simone S White
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Bayesian random effects for interrater and test-retest reliability with nested clinical observations.

Authors:  Chuhsing K Hsiao; Pei-Chun Chen; Wen-Hsin Kao
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Assessing interrater agreement from dependent data.

Authors:  J M Williamson; A K Manatunga
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  On fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models for binary responses using different statistical packages.

Authors:  Hui Zhang; Naiji Lu; Changyong Feng; Sally W Thurston; Yinglin Xia; Liang Zhu; Xin M Tu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-06-10       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.

Authors:  Charlotte C Gard; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen H Taplin; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn Abraham; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Megan Smith; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta A Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert D Rosenberg; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse; Melissa L Anderson; Bonnie Yankaskas
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 5.532

View more
  5 in total

1.  Assessing method agreement for paired repeated binary measurements administered by multiple raters.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Nan Lin; Jordan D Oberhaus; Michael S Avidan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Summary measures of agreement and association between many raters' ordinal classifications.

Authors:  Aya A Mitani; Phoebe E Freer; Kerrie P Nelson
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 3.797

3.  How do clinicians rate patient's performance status using the ECOG performance scale? A mixed-methods exploration of variability in decision-making in oncology.

Authors:  Soumitra S Datta; Niladri Ghosal; Rhea Daruvala; Santam Chakraborty; Raj Kumar Shrimali; Chantalle van Zanten; Joe Parry; Sanjit Agrawal; Shrikant Atreya; Subir Sinha; Sanjoy Chatterjee; Simon Gollins
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2019-03-28

4.  Homogeneity score test of AC1 statistics and estimation of common AC1 in multiple or stratified inter-rater agreement studies.

Authors:  Chikara Honda; Tetsuji Ohyama
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Tongue Image Database Construction Based on the Expert Opinions: Assessment for Individual Agreement and Methods for Expert Selection.

Authors:  Zhen Qi; Li-Ping Tu; Zhi-Yu Luo; Xiao-Juan Hu; Ling-Zhi Zeng; Wen Jiao; Xu-Xiang Ma; Cong-Cong Jing; Wei-Jian Wang; Zhi-Feng Zhang; Jia-Tuo Xu
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 2.629

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.