Table 1.

Method used to assess accuracy of participant’s description of histopathologic features

Rater 1 response	Rater 2 response
	Stated feature not found	Accurately represents features	Stated features underrepresent actual features	Stated features overrepresent actual features	Stated features are contradictory	Ambiguous, difficult to judge
Stated feature not found	25a,b	2c	1a	1a	0a	0c
Accurately represents features	0c	685b,d	13c	23c	0c	1c
Stated features underrepresent actual features	0a	8c	172a,b	0a	0a	0c
Stated features overrepresent actual features	0a	2c	0a	188a,b	0a	1c
Stated features are contradictory	0a	1c	0a	1a	2a,b	0c
Ambiguous, difficult to judge	1c	12c	3c	0c	0c	69b,c

Agreement/disagreement between expert rater 1 and rater 2 after round 2 of evaluating study participants’ feature annotations of their individually drawn pROI. The frequency of agreement between the 2 raters is along the (upper left to lower right) diagonal. The 2 raters’ assessments agreed for 1141 of 1211 annotations (94.2%).

^aInaccurate

^bIndicates agreement

^cExcluded from analyses due to disagreement between the 2 raters or ambiguous descriptions from participants

^dAccurate