Visual grading regression with random effects

To analyze visual grading experiments, ordinal logistic regression (here called visual grading regression, VGR) may be used in the statistical analysis. In addition to types of imaging or post-processing, the VGR model may include factors such as patient and observer identity, which should be treated as random effects. Standard software does not allow random factors in ordinal logistic regression, but using Generalized Linear Latent And Mixed Models (GLLAMM) this is possible. In a single-image study, 9 radiologists graded 24 cardiac Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) images with reduced dose without and after post-processing with a 2D adaptive filter, using five image quality criteria. First, standard ordinal logistic regression was carried out, treating filtering, patient and observer identity as fixed effects. The same analysis was then repeated with GLLAMM, treating filtering as a fixed effect and patient and observer identity as random effects. With both approaches, a significant effect (p<0.01) of the filtering was found for all five criteria. No dramatic differences in parameter estimates or significance levels were found between the two approaches. It is concluded that random effects can be appropriately handled in VGR using GLLAMM, but no major differences in the results were found in a preliminary evaluation.

[1]  K. Ledenius,et al.  A method to analyse observer disagreement in visual grading studies: example of assessed image quality in paediatric cerebral multidetector CT images. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  T. Snijders Fixed and Random Effects , 2014 .

[3]  E Svensson,et al.  Ordinal invariant measures for individual and group changes in ordered categorical data. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  R. Brant Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. , 1990, Biometrics.

[5]  Pickles A SkrondalA. Rabe-HeskethS GLLAMM: A general class of multilevel models and a STATA programme , 2001 .

[6]  M Båth,et al.  Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[7]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[8]  S. Mattsson,et al.  Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[9]  A. Agresti,et al.  The Authors Replied as Follows: , 2001 .

[10]  D R Dance,et al.  Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  O Smedby,et al.  Visual grading regression: analysing data from visual grading experiments with regression models. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.

[12]  Örjan Smedby,et al.  The efficacy of 2D, non-linear noise reduction filtering in cardiac imaging: a pilot study , 2011, Acta radiologica.