Estimating rate of growth in bone lesions: observer performance and error.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In an experimental study of reader experience in identifying the variables to grading bone neoplasms, reader error is measured against book grade, a human consensus of the presence or absence of key variables. The average accuracy for classifying focal lesions into slow or fast categories is 83.4% for 890 [radiographic] readings as compared with average diagnostic accuracy of 53.7%. Analyses of human error have provided insight into how to improve the grading algorithm without significant loss of its ability to separate lesions into meaningful categories.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: