The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement of Observer Agreement
Abstract
Statistical measures are described that are used in diagnostic imaging for expressing observer agreement in regard to categorical data. The measures are used to characterize the reliability of imaging methods and the reproducibility of disease classifications and, occasionally with great care, as the surrogate for accuracy. The review concentrates on the chance-corrected indices, kappa and weighted kappa. Examples from the imaging literature illustrate the method of calculation and the effects of both disease prevalence and the number of rating categories. Other measures of agreement that are used less frequently, including multiple-rater kappa, are referenced and described briefly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l · Cited by 3,034
High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes
Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-m · Cited by 1,838
Cited by
Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications
Bi, W. L., Hosny, A., Schabath, M. B., Giger, M. L., Birkbak, N. J., Mehrtash, A., Allison, T., Arnaout, O., Abbosh, C., Dunn, I. F., et al. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21552 · Cited by 1,846
Current Concepts in Validity and Reliability for Psychometric Instruments: Theory and Application
Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2006) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036 · Cited by 1,745
Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance Metrics
Palmer, J. W. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.2.151.88 · Cited by 1,640
The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976 · Cited by 1,183
Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0380 · Cited by 1,073
Metadata
- Authors
- Kundel, H. L., & Polansky, M.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 228
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 303-308
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2101073067
- Cited by
- 1,492
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 49.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement of Observer Agreement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2282011860
- The paper
- Kundel, H. L., & Polansky, M. (2003). Measurement of Observer Agreement. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2282011860
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
