Key result
Neurosurgical residents show low accuracy classifying carotid plaque vulnerability on ultrasound, peaking at ~73%.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of neurosurgical residents in classifying carotid plaque vulnerability on carotid ultrasonography images.
How accurate are neurosurgical residents at classifying carotid plaque vulnerability using carotid ultrasonography images compared to a neuroradiologist?
Observational (n=405)
No
How accurate are neurosurgical residents at classifying carotid plaque vulnerability using carotid ultrasonography images compared to a neuroradiologist?
Neurosurgical residents demonstrated low accuracy in discriminating carotid plaque vulnerability on ultrasonography, highlighting the need for automated interpretation systems or further education.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Low resident accuracy classifying carotid plaque vulnerability on US may support targeted training or automation; leaves open effects on outcomes.
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the classification of carotid plaque vulnerability (unstable vs. stable plaques) by neurosurgical residents based on carotid ultrasonography (US) images.Methods: A total of 405 subjects with 995 images were included in the study. Using a neuroradiologist’s decision as the reference value, the classification results of five reviewers were analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy were estimated. Then, a pairwise comparison of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and precision-recall curve was performed to compare the reviewers’ classification accuracy.Results: The mean age of the subjects was 70.5 years (range, 44–91 years) and 223 (55.1%) were female. The number of unstable and stable plaques was 236 (24.7%) and 749 (75.3%), respectively. The best-balanced classification performance of plaque vulnerability was a sensitivity of 83.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.5%–88.1%), specificity of 69.0% (95% CI, 65.6%–72.3%), and overall accuracy of 72.7% (95% CI, 69.8%–75.4%). The best ROC performance was an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.583 (95% CI, 0.552–0.614). The precision-recall curve also showed low classification accuracy among the reviewers (AUC difference: 0.028; 95% bootstrap CI, 0.007–0.048).Conclusion: The classification accuracy of neurosurgical residents to discriminate plaque vulnerability seen on carotid US images was low in a real-world clinical setting. Thus, it is necessary to develop systems that help to educate and automatically interpret plaque stability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Na et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Carotid plaque vulnerability (n=405). Carotid ultrasonography interpretation by neurosurgical residents vs. Neuroradiologist's interpretation (reference standard) was evaluated on Overall accuracy of carotid plaque vulnerability classification (best-performing reviewer) (95% CI 69.8-75.4). Neurosurgical residents demonstrated low accuracy in classifying carotid plaque vulnerability on ultrasonography images, with the best-performing resident achieving an overall accuracy of 72.7%.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: