Dataset Information

High Inter-Rater Reliability of Manual Segmentation and Volume-Based Tractography in Healthy and Dystrophic Human Calf Muscle.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Muscle diffusion tensor imaging (mDTI) is a promising surrogate biomarker in the evaluation of muscular injuries and neuromuscular diseases. Since mDTI metrics are known to vary between different muscles, separation of different muscles is essential to achieve muscle-specific diffusion parameters. The commonly used technique to assess DTI metrics is parameter maps based on manual segmentation (MSB). Other techniques comprise tract-based approaches, which can be performed in a previously defined volume. This so-called volume-based tractography (VBT) may offer a more robust assessment of diffusion metrics and additional information about muscle architecture through tract properties. The purpose of this study was to assess DTI metrics of human calf muscles calculated with two segmentation techniques-MSB and VBT-regarding their inter-rater reliability in healthy and dystrophic calf muscles.

Methods

20 healthy controls and 18 individuals with different neuromuscular diseases underwent an MRI examination in a 3T scanner using a 16-channel Torso XL coil. DTI metrics were assessed in seven calf muscles using MSB and VBT. Coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated for both techniques. MSB and VBT were performed by two independent raters to assess inter-rater reliability by ICC analysis and Bland-Altman plots. Next to analysis of DTI metrics, the same assessments were also performed for tract properties extracted with VBT.

Results

For both techniques, low CV were found for healthy controls (≤13%) and neuromuscular diseases (≤17%). Significant differences between methods were found for all diffusion metrics except for λ₁. High inter-rater reliability was found for both MSB and VBT (ICC ≥ 0.972). Assessment of tract properties revealed high inter-rater reliability (ICC ≥ 0.974).

Conclusions

Both segmentation techniques can be used in the evaluation of DTI metrics in healthy controls and different NMD with low rater dependency and high precision but differ significantly from each other. Our findings underline that the same segmentation protocol must be used to ensure comparability of mDTI data.

SUBMITTER: Forsting J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8466691 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the reliability of a novel segmentation-based volume rendering approach for quantification of benign central airway obstruction (BCAO).DesignA retrospective single-center cohort study.SettingData were ascertained using electronic health records at a tertiary academic medical center in the United States.Participants and inclusionPatients with airway stenosis located within the trachea on two-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) imaging and documentation of suspected benign etiology were included. Four readers with varying expertise in quantifying tracheal stenosis severity were selected to manually segment each CT using a volume rendering approach with the available free tools in the medical imaging viewing software OsiriX (Bernex, Switzerland). Three expert thoracic radiologists were recruited to quantify the same CTs using traditional subjective methods on a continuous and categorical scale.Outcome measuresThe interrater reliability for continuous variables was calculated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using a two-way mixed model with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsThirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria, and fifty CT scans were selected for measurement. The most common etiology of BCAO was iatrogenic in 22 patients (58%). There was an even distribution of chest and neck CT imaging within our cohort. The average ICC across all four readers for the volume rendering approach was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.93), suggesting good to excellent agreement. The average ICC for thoracic radiologists for subjective methods on the continuous scale was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.55), suggesting poor to fair agreement. The kappa for the categorical approach was 0.26, suggesting a slight to fair agreement amongst the raters.ConclusionIn this retrospective cohort study, agreement was good to excellent for raters with varying expertise in airway cross-sectional imaging using a novel segmentation-based volume rendering approach to quantify BCAO. This proposed measurement outperformed our expert thoracic radiologists using conventional subjective grading methods.

Project description:BackgroundThe CHEERS is a self-administered tool to measure gaps, weaknesses, and strengths of an early childhood education and care (ECEC) centre-based nutrition and physical activity environment. ECEC settings have the potential to profoundly influence early dietary and physical activity behaviours. Content validation of the CHEERS tool has been previously reported. The purpose of this study was to develop reliability and validity evidence for the CHEERS audit tool and the proposed subscales of food served, healthy eating environment, program planning, and physical activity environment in ECEC centre-based programs.MethodsThis cross-sectional study consisted of 2 phases: Phase 1 included inter-, intra-rater and Cronbach's ?. A subset of this sample was invited to participate in a second survey (Trial 2) for intra-rater assessment within 3 weeks of completing the first survey (Trial 1). Phase 2 included concurrent validity assessment between a nutrition expert and the ECEC director using within a one-week period.ResultsOne hundred two directors and 85 educators (total of 187) returned the survey. Of these, there were 75 matched pairs for inter-rater reliability analysis providing a CHEERS ICC score of 0.59 and ICC scores ranging from 0.40 to 0.58 for the subscales. The ICC for intra-rater reliability of the CHEERS score was 0.81 for 40 participants completing the survey a second time and a range of 0.72 to 0.79 for the subscales. The CHEERS tool demonstrated very good internal consistency (??=?0.91) and ? scores ranging from 0.73 to 0.79 for the subscales. In phase 2, concurrent validation was ICC?=?0.65 (n?=?30) CHEERS scores with a range of 0.42 to 0.69 for the subscales.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence of inter-, intra-rater reliability, internal consistency, and concurrent validity of an environmental assessment audit tool to assess the nutrition and physical activity environment of ECEC centre-based programs. The results demonstrate that the self-administered CHEERS instrument is stable overtime and between evaluators at the same ECEC centre. The scores obtained with CHEERS self-administered audit tool are reasonably accurate compared to an expert rater (dietitian) assessment. This study adds additional support to establishing the psychometric soundness of the CHEERS tool.