Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Tuyển tập các báo cáo nghiên cứu về y học được đăng trên tạp chí y học quốc tế cung cấp cho các bạn kiến thức về ngành y đề tài: Maximum likelihood estimation of reviewers’ acumen in central review setting: categorical data. | Zhao et al. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2011 8 3 http www.tbiomed.eom content 8 1 3 THEORETICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICAL MODELLING RESEARCH Open Access Maximum likelihood estimation of reviewers acumen in central review setting categorical data Wei Zhao 1 James M Boyett2 Mehmet Kocak2 David W Ellison3 and Yanan Wu2 4 Correspondence ZhaoW@medimmune.com 1MedImmune LLC. Gaithersburg MD 20878 USA Full list of author information is available at the end of the article BioMed Central Abstract Successfully evaluating pathologists acumen could be very useful in improving the concordance of their calls on histopathologic variables. We are proposing a new method to estimate the reviewers acumen based on their histopathologic calls. The previously proposed method includes redundant parameters that are not identifiable and results are incorrect. The new method is more parsimonious and through extensive simulation studies we show that the new method relies less on the initial values and converges to the true parameters. The result of the anesthetist data set by the new method is more convincing. 1. Introduction Histopathologic diagnosis and the subclassification of tumors into grades of malignancy are critical to the care of cancer patients serving as a basis for both prognosis and therapy. Such diagnostic schemes evolve and this process often involves reproducibility studies to ensure accuracy and clinical relevance. However studies of existing or novel histopathologic grading schemes often reveal diagnostic variance among pathologists 1-4 . The process of histopathologic evaluation is necessarily subjective even objective assessments as part of the histologic work-up of a tumor such as the mitotic index are semi-quantitative at best. While this subjectivity underlies discrepancies between pathologists when several evaluate a series of tumors together a pathologist s experience and skill with different tumor types especially uncommon tumors such as some brain tumors .
