Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment.

David Gur1, Howard E Rockette, Derek R Armfield

  • 1Department of Radiology, Imaging Research, Suite 4200, University of Pittsburgh, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3180, USA. gurd@msx.upmc.edu

Radiology
|July 2, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Global disparities in hepatocellular carcinoma care: insights from the ESGAR Global Abdominal Imaging Forum.

European radiology·2026
Same author

Integrated multichannel seismic profiler dataset from the southeastern apulia continental margin (Otranto Channel, Southern Adriatic Sea): Insights into fault-controlled gas seeps and geo-hazards.

Data in brief·2026
Same author

Focal lesions in the cirrhotic liver: an update on LI-RADS classification and clinical implications.

Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver·2026
Same author

Evaluation of In Vitro Efficiency of Ciclopirox Against <i>Yersinia pestis</i> and <i>Francisella tularensis</i>.

International journal of molecular sciences·2026
Same author

Pelvic floor dysfunction: Anatomical characterization and functional imaging with MRI defecography.

European journal of radiology·2026
Same author

A multicenter multinational retrospective study of the 1-year natural history of LI-RADS 3 observations in patients with cirrhosis.

European radiology·2026
Same journal

Erratum for: Prediction of Lobar Emphysema Progression with a CT-Based Foundational Model.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Erratum for: Associations of MRI-derived Paraspinal IMAT and LMM with Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: Results from a German Cohort.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Erratum for: Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Redefining the Clinical Role of MRI in Endometrial Cancer Staging.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

To Ablate or Not to Ablate: The Colorectal Liver Metastasis Question.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

The Limits of Radiologic Categorization in Pulmonary Nonsolid Nodules.

Radiology·2026
See all related articles

Observer performance in diagnostic imaging is not significantly affected by prevalence levels under laboratory conditions. This suggests prevalence has a minimal impact on diagnostic accuracy and review times, regardless of reader experience.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Imaging
  • Diagnostic Accuracy
  • Observer Performance

Background:

  • Prevalence, the proportion of cases with a specific condition, can influence diagnostic test performance.
  • Understanding the impact of prevalence is crucial for interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To quantify the effect of varying prevalence levels on observer performance in interpreting medical images.
  • To assess if prevalence influences diagnostic accuracy and case review times.

Main Methods:

  • A multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study was conducted with 14 observers interpreting 1,632 chest images.
  • Five different prevalence levels, ranging from 28% to 2%, were used in a nested study design.
  • Diagnostic accuracy and mean review/reporting times were analyzed across different prevalence levels and observer experience groups.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • No statistically significant effect of prevalence on observer performance (area under the ROC curve) was detected for any abnormality or reader group (P >.05).
  • Mean times for case review and reporting did not significantly differ across varying prevalence levels or reader experience.
  • Results indicate consistency and a lack of significant prevalence-related bias under the study's experimental conditions.

Conclusions:

  • Under laboratory conditions, the effect of prevalence on observer performance in diagnostic imaging is negligible.
  • The findings suggest that conclusions drawn from diagnostic accuracy studies are unlikely to be significantly altered by prevalence.
  • This study underscores the robustness of observer performance irrespective of prevalence in controlled settings.