Literature DB >> 33969509

Measuring rater bias in diagnostic tests with ordinal ratings.

Chanmin Kim1, Xiaoyan Lin2, Kerrie P Nelson3.   

Abstract

Diagnostic tests are frequently reliant upon the interpretation of images by skilled raters. In many clinical settings, however, the variability observed between experts' ratings plays a detrimental role in the degree of confidence in these interpretations, leading to uncertainty in the diagnostic process. For example, in breast cancer testing, radiologists interpret mammographic images, while breast biopsy results are examined by pathologists. Each of these procedures involves elements of subjectivity. We propose here a flexible two-stage Bayesian latent variable model to investigate how the skills of individual raters impact the diagnostic accuracy of image-related testing in large-scale medical testing studies. A strength of the proposed model is that the true disease status of a patient within a reasonable time frame may or may not be known. In these studies, many raters each contribute classifications on a large sample of patients using a defined ordinal grading scale, leading to a complex correlation structure between ratings. Our modeling approach considers the different sources of variability contributed by experts and patients while accounting for correlations present between ratings and patients, in contrast to currently available methods. We propose a novel measure of a rater's ability (magnifier) that, in contrast to conventional measures of sensitivity and specificity, is robust to the underlying prevalence of disease in the population, providing an alternative measure of diagnostic accuracy across patient populations. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate lower bias in estimation of parameters and measures of accuracy, and illustrate outperformance of the proposed model when compared with existing models. Receiver operator characteristic curves are derived to assess the diagnostic accuracy of individual experts and their overall performance. Our proposed modeling approach is applied to a large breast imaging study for known disease status and a uterine cancer dataset for unknown disease status.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian latent variable model; ROC curve; breast imaging; diagnostic test; ordinal ratings; variability

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33969509      PMCID: PMC8277718          DOI: 10.1002/sim.9011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.497


  21 in total

1.  Assessing physicians' accuracy in diagnosing paediatric patients with acute abdominal pain: measuring accuracy for multiple diseases.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski; M J Goske; K E Applegate
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-11-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images.

Authors:  S Geman; D Geman
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 6.226

4.  Random effects modeling approaches for estimating ROC curves from repeated ordinal tests without a gold standard.

Authors:  Paul S Albert
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Weighted kappa for multiple raters.

Authors:  Kenneth J Berry; Janis E Johnston; Paul W Mielke
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  2008-12

6.  Random effects models for assessing diagnostic accuracy of traditional Chinese doctors in absence of a gold standard.

Authors:  Zheyu Wang; Xiao-Hua Zhou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Y Qu; M Tan; M H Kutner
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 8.  Estimating diagnostic accuracy without a gold standard: A continued controversy.

Authors:  John Collins; Paul S Albert
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 1.051

9.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy: Basic Definitions.

Authors:  Ana-Maria Šimundić
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2009-01-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.