Skip to main content
. 2018 May 25;6(6):E646–E651. doi: 10.1055/a-0581-8758

Table 2. Results of the four readings and experts' agreement of the two 228-frame datasets.

Dataset Reader Reading Adequately cleansed
frames (%)
Inadequately cleansed
frames (%)
Pearson’s coefficient Exclusion of images for inter-reader discrepancies 1
1 1 1 134 (46.5 %) 154 (53.5 %) Intra-reader 1 = 0.90
Intra-reader 2 = 0.85
Inter-reader 1 – 2 = 0.87
8 frames
2 126 (43.7 %) 162 (56.3 %)
2 1 121 (42.0 %) 167 (58.0 %)
2 126 (43.7 %) 162 (56.3 %)
2 3 1 121 (42.0 %) 167 (58.0 %) Intra-reader 3 = 0.89
Intra-reader 4 = 0.81
Inter-reader 3 – 4 = 0.82
11 frames
2 119 (41.3 %) 169 (58.7 %)
4 1 104 (36.1 %) 184 (63.9 %)
2 110 (38.2 %) 178 (61.8 %)
1

Three or four agreements among the four readings of the same frame made a definitive classification. For any discrepancy (2 adequate and 2 inadequate classifications of the same frame), image was excluded from the analysis.