Back

Estimating the Inter- and Intra-Rater Reliability for NASH Fibrosis Staging in the Presence of Bridge Ordinal Ratings with Hierarchical Bridge Category Models

Levy, J.; Bobak, C.; Azizgolshani, N.; Liu, X.; Ren, B.; Lisovsky, M.; Suriawinata, A.; Christensen, B.; O'Malley, J.; Vaickus, L.

2021-10-28 pathology
10.1101/2021.10.27.466144 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The public health burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), a liver condition characterized by excessive lipid accumulation and subsequent tissue inflammation and fibrosis, has burgeoned with the spread of western lifestyle habits. Progression of fibrosis into cirrhosis is assessed using histological staging scales (e.g., NASH Clinical Research Network (NASH CRN)). These scales are used to monitor disease progression as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies. However, clinical drug trials for NASH are typically underpowered due to lower than expected inter-/intra-rater reliability, which impacts measurements at screening, baseline, and endpoint. Bridge ratings represent a phenomenon where pathologists assign two adjacent stages simultaneously during assessment and may further complicate these analyses when ad hoc procedures are applied. Statistical techniques, dubbed Bridge Category Models, have been developed to account for bridge ratings, but not for the scenario where multiple pathologists assess biopsies across time points. Here, we develop hierarchical Bayesian extensions for these statistical methods to account for repeat observations and use these methods to assess the impact of bridge ratings on the inter-/intra-rater reliability of the NASH CRN staging scale. We also report on how pathologists may differ in their assignment of bridge ratings to highlight different staging practices. Our findings suggest that Bridge Category Models can capture additional fibrosis staging heterogeneity with greater precision, which translates to potentially higher reliability estimates in contrast to the information lost through ad hoc approaches.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.