The influence of experience and training in a group of novice observers: A jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis

Periapical Radiography versus Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Endodontic Disease Detection: A Free-response, Factorial Study

AIM

To assess and compare reader performance in interpreting digital periapical (PA) radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in endodontic disease detection, using a free-response, factorial model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A reader performance study of 2 image test sets was undertaken using a factorial, free-response design, accounting for the independent variables: case type, case severity, reader type, and imaging modality. Twenty-two readers interpreted 60 PA and 60 CBCT images divided into 5 categories: diseased-subtle, diseased-moderate, diseased-obvious, nondiseased-subtle, and nondiseased-obvious. Lesion localization fraction, specificity, false positive (FP) marks, and the weighted alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit were calculated.

RESULTS

CBCT had greater specificity than PA in the obvious nondiseased cases (P = .01) and no significant difference in the subtle nondiseased category. Weighted alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic values were higher for PA than CBCT in the subtle diseased (P = .02) and moderate diseased (P = .01) groups with no significant difference between in the obvious diseased groups. CBCT had higher mean FPs than PA (P < .05) in subtle diseased cases. Mean lesion localization fraction in the moderate diseased group was higher in PA than CBCT (P = .003). No relationships were found between clinical experience and all diagnostic performance measures, except for in the obvious diseased CBCT group, where increasing experience was associated mean FP marks (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Reader performance in the detection of endodontic disease is better with PA radiography than CBCT. Clinical experience does not impact upon the accuracy of interpretation of both PA radiography and CBCT.

Chest X-ray Interpretation by Radiographers Is Not Inferior to Radiologists: A Multireader, Multicase Comparison Using JAFROC (Jack-knife Alternative Free-response Receiver Operating Characteristics) Analysis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Chest X-rays (CXR) are one of the most frequently requested imaging examinations and are fundamental to many patient pathways. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CXR interpretation by reporting radiographers (technologists).

METHODS

A cohort of consultant radiologists (n = 10) and reporting radiographers (technologists; n = 11) interpreted a bank (n = 106) of adult CXRs that contained a range of pathologies. Jack-knife alternate free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) methodology was used to determine the performance of the observers (JAFROC v4.2). A noninferiority approach was used, with a predefined margin of clinical insignificance of 10% of average consultant radiologist diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of the reporting radiographers (figure of merit = 0.828, 95% confidence interval 0.808-0.847) was noninferior to the consultant radiologists (figure of merit = 0.788, 95% confidence interval 0.766-0.811), P < .0001.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate postgraduate education, reporting radiographers are able to interpret CXRs at a level comparable to consultant radiologists.