Table 5.
Comparison of Reproducibility between 2 Different Size Cutoffs (1.25 mm2 and 2.5 mm2)
| < 1.25 mm2 | ≥ 1.25 mm2 and < 2.5 mm2 | ≥ 2.5 mm2 | P Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gradable images (arbitrator only) | 58 | 62 | 1693 | ||
| Gradeability concordance | 52 (89.6%) | 56 (90.3%) | 1568 (92.6%) | 0.50 | |
| Gradable images (arbitrator and both readers) | 52 | 56 | 1563 | ||
| Size-concordant images | 21 (40.4%) | 29 (51.8%) | 1356 (86.8%) | < 0.001 | |
A total of 1813 images were gradable (per the arbitrator), and a total of 1671 images were gradable per the arbitrator and both readers. A difference of < 10% between the 2 readers’ size measurements was considered size concordant. P values compare the difference between images with lesion size of 1.25 mm2 to 2.5 mm2 compared with those ≥ 2.5mm2. There was no difference in gradeability or gradeability concordance between the 2 groups, but the smaller lesions did have lower size condordance.