Table 3:
Intrareader agreement demonstrated with binary groupings of new and improved lesions using both conventional side-by-side comparison and the softwarea
| New Lesions (κ) (95% CI) | Improved Lesions (κ) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| One or more lesions | ||
| VTS 1st vs VTS 2nd read | 1.000 | 0.937 (0.815–1.000) |
| CSSC 1st vs CSSC 2nd read | 0.941 (0.826–1.000) | 0.462 (0.039–0.886) |
| Two or more lesions | ||
| VTS 1st vs VTS 2nd read | 1.000 | 0.731 (0.448–1.000) |
| CSSC 1st vs CSSC 2nd read | 0.846 (0.640–1.000) | 0.482 (−0.118–1.000) |
| Three or more lesions | ||
| VTS 1st vs VTS 2nd read | 1.000 | 0.774 (0.472–1.000) |
| CSSC 1st vs CSSC 2nd read | 0.724 (0.361–1.000) | 0.482 (−0.118–1.000) |
a
Correlations demonstrated substantial intrareader agreement. The software generally outperformed conventional side-by-side comparison without, however, reaching statistical significance.