Skip to main content
letter
. 2023 Aug 25;23:799. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11325-z

Table 1.

The confusion matrix of the response assessment results with respect to reference standard and the IRRs of treatment response assessment

Reference standard
PR SD PD Total κc κlW κqW κ*
Testing dataset R1 PR 1 0 2 3 0.35 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.11–0.60) 0.38 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.11–0.66) 0.40 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.08–0.73) 0.48
SD 4 3 3 10
PD 1 1 16 18
Total 6 4 21 31
R2 PR 1 0 3 4 0.22 (p > 0.05, 95% CI =−0.03–0.47) 0.20 (p > 0.05, 95% CI =−0.08–0.48) 0.18 (p > 0.05, 95% CI =−0.17–0.53) 0.30
SD 3 3 5 11
PD 2 1 13 16
Total 6 4 21 31
Automated segmentation PR 2 0 2 4 0.49 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.23–0.76) 0.51 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.23–0.79) 0.52 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.19–0.85) 0.51
SD 3 3 1 7
PD 1 1 18 20
Total 6 4 21 31
Validation cohort R1 PR 3 2 0 5 0.57 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.34–0.80) 0.67 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.46–0.87) 0.75 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.54–0.95) 0.63
SD 3 2 1 6
PD 1 0 19 20
Total 7 4 20 31
R2 PR 2 2 2 6 0.38 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.14–0.61) 0.45 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.20–0.69) 0.51 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.23–0.79) 0.45
SD 4 2 2 8
PD 1 0 16 17
Total 7 4 20 31
Automated segmentation PR 4 2 0 6 0.52 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.26–0.78) 0.60 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.35–0.85) 0.66 (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.39–0.93) 0.60
SD 1 2 3 6
PD 2 0 17 19
Total 7 4 20 31

The data has been cited from the article published by Liu et al. [3]. R1: an attending radiologist with 8 year’s reading experience; R2: a fellow radiologist with 4 year’s reading experience; κc: Cohen’s Kappa value; κlw: linear weighted Kappa value; κqw: quadratic weighted Kappa value; κ*: Kappa value calculated by Liu et al.; CI: confidence interval; PR: partial response; SD: stable disease; PD: progressive disease