IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0002925.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Agreement between Multiple Raters with Missing Rating Information, Applied to Breast Cancer Tumour Grading

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas R Fanshawe
  • Andrew G Lynch
  • Ian O Ellis
  • Andrew R Green
  • Rudolf Hanka

Abstract

Background: We consider the problem of assessing inter-rater agreement when there are missing data and a large number of raters. Previous studies have shown only ‘moderate’ agreement between pathologists in grading breast cancer tumour specimens. We analyse a large but incomplete data-set consisting of 24177 grades, on a discrete 1–3 scale, provided by 732 pathologists for 52 samples. Methodology/Principal Findings: We review existing methods for analysing inter-rater agreement for multiple raters and demonstrate two further methods. Firstly, we examine a simple non-chance-corrected agreement score based on the observed proportion of agreements with the consensus for each sample, which makes no allowance for missing data. Secondly, treating grades as lying on a continuous scale representing tumour severity, we use a Bayesian latent trait method to model cumulative probabilities of assigning grade values as functions of the severity and clarity of the tumour and of rater-specific parameters representing boundaries between grades 1–2 and 2–3. We simulate from the fitted model to estimate, for each rater, the probability of agreement with the majority. Both methods suggest that there are differences between raters in terms of rating behaviour, most often caused by consistent over- or under-estimation of the grade boundaries, and also considerable variability in the distribution of grades assigned to many individual samples. The Bayesian model addresses the tendency of the agreement score to be biased upwards for raters who, by chance, see a relatively ‘easy’ set of samples. Conclusions/Significance: Latent trait models can be adapted to provide novel information about the nature of inter-rater agreement when the number of raters is large and there are missing data. In this large study there is substantial variability between pathologists and uncertainty in the identity of the ‘true’ grade of many of the breast cancer tumours, a fact often ignored in clinical studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas R Fanshawe & Andrew G Lynch & Ian O Ellis & Andrew R Green & Rudolf Hanka, 2008. "Assessing Agreement between Multiple Raters with Missing Rating Information, Applied to Breast Cancer Tumour Grading," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0002925
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002925
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002925&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0002925?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pieter Meeremans & Noëlle Yochum & Marc Kochzius & Bart Ampe & Frank A M Tuyttens & Sven Sebastian Uhlmann, 2017. "Inter-rater reliability of categorical versus continuous scoring of fish vitality: Does it affect the utility of the reflex action mortality predictor (RAMP) approach?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0002925. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.