↓ Skip to main content

Voting for Image Scoring and Assessment (VISA) - theory and application of a 2 + 1 reader algorithm to improve accuracy of imaging endpoints in clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Voting for Image Scoring and Assessment (VISA) - theory and application of a 2 + 1 reader algorithm to improve accuracy of imaging endpoints in clinical trials
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12880-015-0049-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus Gottlieb, Fez Hussain

Abstract

Independent central reading or off-site reading of imaging endpoints is increasingly used in clinical trials. Clinician-reported outcomes, such as endoscopic disease activity scores, have been shown to be subject to bias and random error. Central reading attempts to limit bias and improve accuracy of the assessment, two factors that are critical to trial success. Whether one central reader is sufficient and how to best integrate the input of more than one central reader into one output measure, is currently not known.In this concept paper we develop the theoretical foundations of a reading algorithm that can achieve both objectives without jeopardizing operational efficiency We examine the role of expert versus competent reader, frame scoring of imaging as a classification task, and propose a voting algorithm (VISA: Voting for Image Scoring and Assessment) as the most appropriate solution which could also be used to operationally define imaging gold standards. We propose two image readers plus an optional third reader in cases of disagreement (2 + 1) for ordinary scoring tasks. We argue that it is critical in trials with endoscopically determined endpoints to include the score determined by the site reader, at least in endoscopy clinical trials. Juries with more than 3 readers could define a reference standard that would allow a transition from measuring reader agreement to measuring reader accuracy. We support VISA by applying concepts from engineering (triple-modular redundancy) and voting theory (Condorcet's jury theorem) and illustrate our points with examples from inflammatory bowel disease trials, specifically, the endoscopy component of the Mayo Clinic Score of ulcerative colitis disease activity. Detailed flow-diagrams (pseudo-code) are provided that can inform program design.The VISA "2 + 1" reading algorithm, based on voting, can translate individual reader scores into a final score in a fashion that is both mathematically sound (by avoiding averaging of ordinal data) and in a manner that is consistent with the scoring task at hand (based on decisions about the presence or absence of features, a subjective classification task). While the VISA 2 + 1 algorithm is currently being used in clinical trials, empirical data of its performance have not yet been reported.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 27%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 15%
Engineering 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,510,637
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#107
of 602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,159
of 255,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 602 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.