Dataset Information

Testing inter-observer error under a collaborative research framework for studying lithic shape variability.

ABSTRACT: Evaluating error that arises through the aggregation of data recorded by multiple observers is a key consideration in many metric and geometric morphometric analyses of stone tool shape. One of the most common approaches involves the convergence of observers for repeat trails on the same set of artefacts: however, this is logistically and financially challenging when collaborating internationally and/or at a large scale. We present and evaluate a unique alternative for testing inter-observer error, involving the development of 3D printed copies of a lithic reference collection for distribution among observers. With the aim of reducing error, clear protocols were developed for photographing and measuring the replicas, and inter-observer variability was assessed on the replicas in comparison with a corresponding data set recorded by a single observer. Our results demonstrate that, when the photography procedure is standardized and dimensions are clearly defined, the resulting metric and geometric morphometric data are minimally affected by inter-observer error, supporting this method as an effective solution for assessing error under collaborative research frameworks. Collaboration is becoming increasingly important within archaeological and anthropological sciences in order to increase the accessibility of samples, encourage dual-project development between foreign and local researchers and reduce the carbon footprint of collection-based research. This study offers a promising validation of a collaborative research design whereby researchers remotely work together to produce comparable data capturing lithic shape variability.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12520-022-01676-2.

SUBMITTER: Timbrell L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9525927 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Testing inter-observer error under a collaborative research framework for studying lithic shape variability.

Timbrell Lucy L Scott Christopher C Habte Behailu B Tefera Yosef Y Monod Hélène H Qazzih Mouna M Marais Benjamin B Black Wendy W Maroma Christine C Ndiema Emmanuel E Henderson Struan S Elmes Katherine K Plomp Kimberly K Grove Matt M

Archaeological and anthropological sciences 20221001 10

Evaluating error that arises through the aggregation of data recorded by multiple observers is a key consideration in many metric and geometric morphometric analyses of stone tool shape. One of the most common approaches involves the convergence of observers for repeat trails on the same set of artefacts: however, this is logistically and financially challenging when collaborating internationally and/or at a large scale. We present and evaluate a unique alternative for testing inter-observer err ...[more]

PMID: 36212164

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEstablishing the reproducibility of expert-derived measurements on CTA exams of aortic dissection is clinically important and paramount for ground-truth determination for machine learning.MethodsFour independent observers retrospectively evaluated CTA exams of 72 patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection and assessed the reproducibility of a recently proposed combination of four morphologic risk predictors (maximum aortic diameter, false lumen circumferential angle, false lumen outflow, and intercostal arteries). For the first inter-observer variability assessment, 47 CTA scans from one aortic center were evaluated by expert-observer 1 in an unconstrained clinical assessment without a standardized workflow and compared to a composite of three expert-observers (observers 2-4) using a standardized workflow. A second inter-observer variability assessment on 30 out of the 47 CTA scans compared observers 3 and 4 with a constrained, standardized workflow. A third inter-observer variability assessment was done after specialized training and tested between observers 3 and 4 in an external population of 25 CTA scans. Inter-observer agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.ResultsPre-training ICCs of the four morphologic features ranged from 0.04 (-0.05 to 0.13) to 0.68 (0.49-0.81) between observer 1 and observers 2-4 and from 0.50 (0.32-0.69) to 0.89 (0.78-0.95) between observers 3 and 4. ICCs improved after training ranging from 0.69 (0.52-0.87) to 0.97 (0.94-0.99), and Bland-Altman analysis showed decreased bias and limits of agreement.ConclusionsManual morphologic feature measurements on CTA images can be optimized resulting in improved inter-observer reliability. This is essential for robust ground-truth determination for machine learning models.Key points• Clinical fashion manual measurements of aortic CTA imaging features showed poor inter-observer reproducibility. • A standardized workflow with standardized training resulted in substantial improvements with excellent inter-observer reproducibility. • Robust ground truth labels obtained manually with excellent inter-observer reproducibility are key to develop reliable machine learning models.

Project description:BackgroundPET-based tumor delineation is an error prone and labor intensive part of image analysis. Especially for patients with advanced disease showing bulky tumor FDG load, segmentations are challenging. Reducing the amount of user-interaction in the segmentation might help to facilitate segmentation tasks especially when labeling bulky and complex tumors. Therefore, this study reports on segmentation workflows/strategies that may reduce the inter-observer variability for large tumors with complex shapes with different levels of user-interaction.MethodsTwenty PET images of bulky tumors were delineated independently by six observers using four strategies: (I) manual, (II) interactive threshold-based, (III) interactive threshold-based segmentation with the additional presentation of the PET-gradient image and (IV) the selection of the most reasonable result out of four established semi-automatic segmentation algorithms (Select-the-best approach). The segmentations were compared using Jaccard coefficients (JC) and percentage volume differences. To obtain a reference standard, a majority vote (MV) segmentation was calculated including all segmentations of experienced observers. Performed and MV segmentations were compared regarding positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity (SE), and percentage volume differences.ResultsThe results show that with decreasing user-interaction the inter-observer variability decreases. JC values and percentage volume differences of Select-the-best and a workflow including gradient information were significantly better than the measurements of the other segmentation strategies (p-value<0.01). Interactive threshold-based and manual segmentations also result in significant lower and more variable PPV/SE values when compared with the MV segmentation.ConclusionsFDG PET segmentations of bulky tumors using strategies with lower user-interaction showed less inter-observer variability. None of the methods led to good results in all cases, but use of either the gradient or the Select-the-best workflow did outperform the other strategies tested and may be a good candidate for fast and reliable labeling of bulky and heterogeneous tumors.

Project description:BackgroundThe biomarker discovery field is replete with molecular signatures that have not translated into the clinic despite ostensibly promising performance in predicting disease phenotypes. One widely cited reason is lack of classification consistency, largely due to failure to maintain performance from study to study. This failure is widely attributed to variability in data collected for the same phenotype among disparate studies, due to technical factors unrelated to phenotypes (e.g., laboratory settings resulting in "batch-effects") and non-phenotype-associated biological variation in the underlying populations. These sources of variability persist in new data collection technologies.MethodsHere we quantify the impact of these combined "study-effects" on a disease signature's predictive performance by comparing two types of validation methods: ordinary randomized cross-validation (RCV), which extracts random subsets of samples for testing, and inter-study validation (ISV), which excludes an entire study for testing. Whereas RCV hardwires an assumption of training and testing on identically distributed data, this key property is lost in ISV, yielding systematic decreases in performance estimates relative to RCV. Measuring the RCV-ISV difference as a function of number of studies quantifies influence of study-effects on performance.ResultsAs a case study, we gathered publicly available gene expression data from 1,470 microarray samples of 6 lung phenotypes from 26 independent experimental studies and 769 RNA-seq samples of 2 lung phenotypes from 4 independent studies. We find that the RCV-ISV performance discrepancy is greater in phenotypes with few studies, and that the ISV performance converges toward RCV performance as data from additional studies are incorporated into classification.ConclusionsWe show that by examining how fast ISV performance approaches RCV as the number of studies is increased, one can estimate when "sufficient" diversity has been achieved for learning a molecular signature likely to translate without significant loss of accuracy to new clinical settings.

Dataset Information

Testing inter-observer error under a collaborative research framework for studying lithic shape variability.

Supplementary information

Publications

Testing inter-observer error under a collaborative research framework for studying lithic shape variability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets