TY - JOUR
T1 - The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC)
T2 - An Evaluation of Radiologist Variability in the Identification of Lung Nodules on CT Scans
AU - Armato, Samuel G.
AU - McNitt-Gray, Michael F.
AU - Reeves, Anthony P.
AU - Meyer, Charles R.
AU - McLennan, Geoffrey
AU - Aberle, Denise R.
AU - Kazerooni, Ella A.
AU - MacMahon, Heber
AU - van Beek, Edwin J R
AU - Yankelevitz, David
AU - Hoffman, Eric A.
AU - Henschke, Claudia I.
AU - Roberts, Rachael Y.
AU - Brown, Matthew S.
AU - Engelmann, Roger M.
AU - Pais, Richard C.
AU - Piker, Christopher W.
AU - Qing, David
AU - Kocherginsky, Masha
AU - Croft, Barbara Y.
AU - Clarke, Laurence P.
PY - 2007/11
Y1 - 2007/11
N2 - Rationale and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of experienced thoracic radiologists in the identification of lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans and thereby to investigate variability in the establishment of the "truth" against which nodule-based studies are measured. Materials and Methods: Thirty CT scans were reviewed twice by four thoracic radiologists through a two-phase image annotation process. During the initial "blinded read" phase, radiologists independently marked lesions they identified as "nodule ≥3 mm (diameter)," "nodule <3 mm," or "non-nodule ≥3 mm." During the subsequent "unblinded read" phase, the blinded read results of all four radiologists were revealed to each radiologist, who then independently reviewed their marks along with the anonymous marks of their colleagues; a radiologist's own marks then could be deleted, added, or left unchanged. This approach was developed to identify, as completely as possible, all nodules in a scan without requiring forced consensus. Results: After the initial blinded read phase, 71 lesions received "nodule ≥3 mm" marks from at least one radiologist; however, all four radiologists assigned such marks to only 24 (33.8%) of these lesions. After the unblinded reads, a total of 59 lesions were marked as "nodule ≥3 mm" by at least one radiologist. Twenty-seven (45.8%) of these lesions received such marks from all four radiologists, three (5.1%) were identified as such by three radiologists, 12 (20.3%) were identified by two radiologists, and 17 (28.8%) were identified by only a single radiologist. Conclusion: The two-phase image annotation process yields improved agreement among radiologists in the interpretation of nodules ≥3 mm. Nevertheless, substantial variabilty remains across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification.
AB - Rationale and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyze the variability of experienced thoracic radiologists in the identification of lung nodules on computed tomography (CT) scans and thereby to investigate variability in the establishment of the "truth" against which nodule-based studies are measured. Materials and Methods: Thirty CT scans were reviewed twice by four thoracic radiologists through a two-phase image annotation process. During the initial "blinded read" phase, radiologists independently marked lesions they identified as "nodule ≥3 mm (diameter)," "nodule <3 mm," or "non-nodule ≥3 mm." During the subsequent "unblinded read" phase, the blinded read results of all four radiologists were revealed to each radiologist, who then independently reviewed their marks along with the anonymous marks of their colleagues; a radiologist's own marks then could be deleted, added, or left unchanged. This approach was developed to identify, as completely as possible, all nodules in a scan without requiring forced consensus. Results: After the initial blinded read phase, 71 lesions received "nodule ≥3 mm" marks from at least one radiologist; however, all four radiologists assigned such marks to only 24 (33.8%) of these lesions. After the unblinded reads, a total of 59 lesions were marked as "nodule ≥3 mm" by at least one radiologist. Twenty-seven (45.8%) of these lesions received such marks from all four radiologists, three (5.1%) were identified as such by three radiologists, 12 (20.3%) were identified by two radiologists, and 17 (28.8%) were identified by only a single radiologist. Conclusion: The two-phase image annotation process yields improved agreement among radiologists in the interpretation of nodules ≥3 mm. Nevertheless, substantial variabilty remains across radiologists in the task of lung nodule identification.
KW - Lung nodule
KW - computed tomography (CT)
KW - computer-aided diagnosis (CAD)
KW - interobserver variability
KW - thoracic imaging
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35348993092&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35348993092&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2007.07.008
DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2007.07.008
M3 - Article
C2 - 17964464
AN - SCOPUS:35348993092
VL - 14
SP - 1409
EP - 1421
JO - Academic Radiology
JF - Academic Radiology
SN - 1076-6332
IS - 11
ER -